14 DAY TRIAL // Apple is the target of a class action suit involving iCloud customers moving from the old MobileMe service who are dissatisfied with some of the aspects regarding their migration to the new suite of Internet services.
One major takeaway from the collective complaint is Apple’s failure to “adequately ensure that features MobileMe users were paying for would be accessible, including access to their e-mail accounts for which customers pay additional fees.”
“As a result, numerous MobileMe users suffered damage from the inability to access their individual accounts,” reads the suit, filed this week in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by plaintiff Danyelle Comer.
Since the suit is labeled as “class”, multiple (unnamed) customers are likely to have joined the action as plaintiffs.
Apple "misrepresented" its iCloud service as paying MobileMe customers experienced "devastating consequences," according to a report by AppleInsider citing the documents in question.
The suit argues that, “Unfortunately for many users it doesn't 'just work' and has resulted in a series of headaches due to lack of syncing ability, lack of email functionality and other complications and losses and corruption of data.”
“In fact,” the complaint stresses, “a number of users have been forced to hire outside technical assistance at significant cost, just to migrate to the iCloud platform or get around it to obtain minimal functionality of emails and other systems."
The suit further mentions iCloud downtime, which seldom caused the inability to access e-mail and other services, throughout the transition.
The lawyers representing plaintiff Danyelle Comer conclude, stating that “Apple's most dedicated consumers, including those who paid for MobileMe service have continually experienced problems with iCloud migration, including lack of email for extended periods.”
According to the report quoting the documents, Apple is being accused of “one count of violation of the Magnus-Moss Warranty Act, one count of unjust enrichment, one count of breach of express warranty, one count of breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.”