Submitted by Constable Odo, Aug 28, 2007 13:11

It appears that a lack of knowledge on the users' part can now be declared as deception by the seller. Why not sue a car manufacturer if a tire goes flat and you say that you didn't know you shouldn't drive around on nails? Does the car manufacturer usually put in in large letters in an advertisement not to drive on nails or other sharp objects? I really think this lawsuit crap is getting out of hand. He should have just returned the phone and terminated the contract if he's so dissatisfied. It's not like an iPhone will cause serious physical damage to this guy. He says he was never informed that the iPhone was locked to AT&T. I find it hard to believe since that was a major complaint about the iPhone before the iPhone ever touched users' hands. As far as his AT&T bill is concerned, why doesn't he duke it out with AT&T and see if he can get some sort of price reduction. Still, why doesn't he also sue AT&T since this is a joint venture by both companies. I hope the guy that brought about this suit loses big time. I'll bet Apple didn't want to be tied to one carrier since they also went to Verizon first but couldn't reach an agreement. Is the iPhone the only cellphone ever to be tied to one carrier? I doubt it. That's probably why there is such a thing as roaming charges. I'm not in favor of the carrier lockdown, but if that's the way it is, deal with it or get another cellphone that isn't tied to one carrier.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.