What you need to know
- California Federal Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr has told a court that no one in America is concerned about claims Apple misrepresented the screen size of its phone.
- The judge was presiding over a lawsuit filed against Apple.
- The suit claims that Apple's OLED screen specifications are misleading because they do not take into account the phone's rounded corners and notch.
A California federal judge presiding over a lawsuit which claims Apple mislead consumers about how many pixels are in its iPhone has told a court "there doesn't really seem to be anyone in America who seems to be concerned about it". U.S District Judge Hawood S. Gilliam Jr is sitting in a class action lawsuit filed against Apple in December.
The lawsuit purports that Apple's claims about the size of its OLED displays, namely size and pixel count, are fraudulent because they don't take into account the phone's rounded corners or the infamous notch. According to the report from AppleInsider
Apple's legal counsel, Tiffany Cheung of Morrison & Foerster LLP, argued that the screen size claims are defeated by multiple disclosures on the packaging of the iPhones in question. She went on to state that the plaintiffs allege Apple is miscounting subpixels, though Apple makes no representation about subpixels in its marketing.C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group PLLC, representing the plaintiffs, argued that Apple could have told consumers the advertised pixel count is "not true pixels," which would reduce the overall resolution.Judge Gilliam remained skeptical, and believes that other judges have set precedent barring the plaintiffs from asserting class consumer protection. However, he said that he would take the arguments under submission.The suit accuses Apple of being misleading about the screen size of the iPhone X, declared as 5.8 inches. According to the filing, the screen is actually "only about 5.6875 inches," and takes issue with the 5.8-inch measurement "pretending that the screen does not have rounded corners."
Judge Gilliam does seem right, in that this is a very small number of pixels to be going to court over. However, we shouldn't underestimate the importance of the case, given that the plaintiff is calling for an injuction against the practice and damage payments to be made to everyone named in the action.
