Intel get hit with a 5 Billion Dollar Class Action Lawsuit from the City of Providence, RI

[ItsMitch]

Well, looks like Intel's lawyers will be having a fun time in court, Source of the day is Patently Apple (Website revolves around Apple's IP) 

Yes this post will be long, get a drink and sit down my friends, it'll be a very long ride. 

 

Intel is now facing 30 active lawsuits for it's critical bugs with Spector and Meltdown and the latest lawsuit which has been filed in the Northern District Court of California by the lovely City of Providence, Rhode Island. Intel has recently confirmed in it's investor filing that it's facing the lawsuit. Let's get into the gritty details of the suit. While the court documents have been published, I'm unable to review them due to them being locked behind PACER and I'm not really wanting to spend $50 to view it. 

 

The CoP is gunning for 8 classes against Intel Corp

Quote

 

City of Providence: Causes for Action

 

Count 1: Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law

Count 2: Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

Count 3: Violation of Rhode Island's Unfair Competition Law

Count 4: Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Count 5: Breach of Implied Warranty

Count 6: Breach of Express Warranty of Marketability

Count 7: Unjust Enrichment

Count 8: Negligence

 

Yeah, they're gunning for a lot of claims in the suit and they do aim to use Intel's marketing against them but this many counts is just ridiculous in my eyes, 

CoP started their paperwork with this

Quote

 

"This is a consumer protection action seeking injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant Intel's sale of defective microprocessor chips to Plaintiff and Class Members for over twenty-three (23) years. Intel's microprocessor chips are defective because they possess significant security vulnerabilities that, if exploited, permit an adversary to access sensitive data stored elsewhere on the machine or in the "cloud." Defendant has been aware of these issues since at least June 2017, and thus far, is unable to offer consumers who purchased devices containing defective microprocessor chips that possess the significant security vulnerabilities described herein ("Affected Devices") an effective remedy.

   

Intel's primary business is the manufacture, sale, and supply of microprocessors for computer system manufacturers like Apple, Lenovo, HP, Dell, among others. Intel also manufactures motherboard chipsets, network interface controllers and integrated circuits, flash memory, graphics chips, embedded processors and other devices related to communications and computing. In 2016, Intel reported full-year revenue of $59.4 billion.

 

Intel's marketing scheme emphasizes its cutting-edge processor speed and security. Defendant repeatedly makes public representations that its machines meet certain performance metrics and possess security features embedded in the hardware, which provided "robust, vulnerability-resistant platforms." For example, on July 11, 2017, Intel unveiled its "powerful" new Xeon Scalable processor, which broke "58 world [performance] records and counting," and was designed to offer businesses "security without compromise" while providing support to "an expanding range of existing and emerging data center, and network workloads, including cloud computing, high-performance computing and artificial intelligence." Similarly on January 19, 2016, Intel unveiled its then new 6th Gen Intel Core vPro processor for "full business productivity with up to 2.5 times the performance," which "lock[ed] the PC's Virtual Front Door with More than Password Protection."

 

Unbeknownst to consumers purchasing Affected Devices, Defendant's microprocessors were defectively designed, exposing Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive information to adversaries through at least two types of security vulnerabilities, dubbed "Meltdown" and "Spectre."

 

From this they're coming out the doors swinging at Intel by bringing up that all of their CPU's from 2016 came with "Security without compromise" and that they failed to disclose to the customers that there was an exploit within the chip. 

Later in the paperwork CoP began to use Intel's marketing as a spear to attack their only line of defence and I mean, they're right, Intel did promise that it's the most secure platform. 

Quote

 

Later in the court filing, the Plaintiff uses Intel's own ads against them. Although the lawsuit pointed to 6 particular ads, we present two of them as noted above. The Plaintiff added the following in their complaint in relation to the ads:

 

"Intel regularly touts the security of its processors in its marketing materials. For example, Intel advertises that its processors offer "Data Protection with Hardware-assisted Security" and ensures "data protection through innovation." In one instance, Intel emphasizes a "key component" of its approach to security is "providing more robust, vulnerability-resistant platforms. Security features are embedded in the hardware of Intel® processors, including three of Intel's newest server processors – the Intel® Xeon® processor E3 v3 family, the Intel® Xeon® processor E5 family, and the Intel® Xeon® processor E7 family, as well as the latest generation Intel® Core™ vPro™ processors." Intel's advertisements routinely focus on security measures built into its processors.

 

In June 2017, Intel learned its microprocessors suffered from several defects that allowed adversaries to access secure consumer data. These defects, colloquially known as Meltdown and Spectre, rendered Affected Devices unfit for their intended use."

 

At this rate they're just trying to go for the jugular and get this in and out of the courts as soon as possible. While I don't have access to the document (I might be able to get it soon tm)

Closing Thoughts

To be honest, I just dunno what to say, yes Intel could of been more transparent and worked faster in it's platform and just halt any kind of processors launches until it's fully fixed but then Intel would of lost a lot of money from it. Any Rhode Island member of this forum can join in the suit somehow INALY. 

All the information is currently on PACER MONITOR's website which you can view but you'll need a subscription to view the document https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23691877/City_of_Providence_v_Intel_Corp

Intel's last filings can be found here: https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/Q4/INTC-Q4Y17-10K.pdf

Have fun, be kind, don't be a dickhead to eachother.

[LordofGangsters]

There isn't 5 billion dollars total in Rhode Island.

[ItsMitch]

2 minutes ago, LordofGangsters said:

There isn't 5 billion dollars total in Rhode Island.

Savage mother fucker I can't breathe 

[NoxiousOdor]

1 minute ago, LordofGangsters said:

There isn't 5 billion dollars total in Rhode Island.

 

1 minute ago, SC2Mitch said:

Savage mother fucker

 

Honestly though, it was like two or three years ago the wealthiest resident wanted to move to a different state and it really messed up their tax situation. The one guy was pretty much personally funding the entire state just from his tax money

[Eduard the weeb]

3 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

Count 1: Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law

wait but its Rhode island not Cali so that means there legislature didn't pass that so why does it affect them?

5 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

Count 8: Negligence

Not really sure if you really can call negligence because no one knew this was a problem until google right ?

 

anyway I just want to say not to well versed in law so yeah lol. ( be gentle plz)

 

 

 

But Idk if all these law suits are really necessary but you do you I guess 

[NQSD]

Well, guess like Intel is in an even deeper trouble now.

[LordofGangsters]

Assuming every single person in Rhode Island purchased an effected Intel CPU and joined the class action, and were awarded the full amount, it would be $5000 per person.

[ItsMitch]

Just now, Eduard the weeb said:

wait but its Rhode island not Cali so that means there legislature didn't pass that so why does it affect them?

10 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

It was filed in Cali's courts, don't ask me ;( 

[Guest]

I think before we come to any drastic conclusions, people want to get the most money they can out of this and it may come to that. We should see how this lawsuit actually pans out. 5 Billion is obviously a very large number to be throwing round. I think calling them 'Defectively Designed' is a bit of a stretch. Maybe the newer processors that have come out without the fix recently, but when in 2016 no one knew about the vulnerabilities its a bit harsh.

Not good for stock prices certianly, I think Intel's CEO will be in hot water for that certianly.

[ItsMitch]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

. I think calling them 'Defectively Designed' is a bit of a stretch. Maybe the newer processors that have come out without the fix recently, but when in 2016 no one knew about the vulnerabilities its a bit harsh.

They could argue that the newest ones, what is it, Coffee lake? or what the fuck it is was defective since it came out just as Intel was informed of the vulnerability

 

2 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Not good for stock prices certianly, I think Intel's CEO will be in hot water for that certianly.

Last time I checked he still is in hot water since the stocks haven't really been that impressive and haven't regained it's stability and I bet for sure that investors are getting concerned

  

*Registers article was the one that broke the problems. 

[NQSD]

Intel is in hot water with a lot of law suits, but why isn't AMD getting any lawsuits? AMD also have same types of vulnerability in their chips.

[ItsMitch]

Just now, NQSD said:

Intel is in hot water with a lot of law suits, but why isn't AMD getting any lawsuits? AMD also have same types of vulnerability in their chips.

They wasn't hit that badly compared to Intel, AMD only had 1** defect but it's extremely difficult to pull off while Intel had all 3 of them. 

 

** One bug was patched via OS patch

[Ryujin2003]

5 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

They could argue that the newest ones, what is it, Coffee lake? or what the fuck it is was defective since it came out just as Intel was informed of the vulnerability

 

Last time I checked he still is in hot water since the stocks haven't really been that impressive and haven't regained it's stability and I bet for sure that investors are getting concerned

  

*Registers article was the one that broke the problems. 

I wonder if this correlates to any Nicholas Cage movies as well... (If you've seen the swimming pool graph, you'll get it).

 

Hm, I wonder if there is a reason they seem to wait until they recover a little before speaking them with this.

 

Mean while, there seems to be a plot against AMD sticks as every investment thing I read days to stay away from them... Hmm.. I smell future conspiracy theory.

[NQSD]

Just now, Ryujin2003 said:

I wonder if this correlates to any Nicholas Cage movies as well... (If you've seen the swimming pool graph, you'll get it).

 

Hm, I wonder if there is a reason they seem to wait until they recover a little before speaking them with this.

 

Mean while, there seems to be a plot against AMD sticks as every investment thing I read days to stay away from them... Hmm.. I smell future conspiracy theory.

Oh boy, even more hardware conspiracy.

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, NQSD said:

Intel is in hot water with a lot of law suits, but why isn't AMD getting any lawsuits?

AMD would only give you $20 per CPU before going bankrupt. 

[ItsMitch]

7 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Mean while, there seems to be a plot against AMD sticks as every investment thing I read days to stay away from them... Hmm.. I smell future conspiracy theory.

pLEasE dOnT mAkE cONspIRaciEs pLEaSe yOu tRIGGer lINuS tEcH tIpS   /s

that was aids to type out but srs, buy low, sell high but I dont think it's a conspiracy. 

[Zodiark1593]

If there's anything that would risk setting us back a decade in cpu performance, it will probably be the courts.

[Methos]

If AMD can pull the rumored 17% IPC lift and Intel has to spend billions in and fighting lawsuits we could be seeing the beginning of a massive CPU hierarchy shift.

[Jito463]

46 minutes ago, NQSD said:

but why isn't AMD getting any lawsuits?

AMD (specifically CEO Lisa Su and CFO Devinder Kumar) were slapped with a  lawsuit recently.  I even made a post about it, though that one seems more like a greedy day trader who got burned and wanted to capitalize on the Spectre issue.

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/887261-amd-sued-over-spectre-flaw/

 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Man if only it was that easy to sue Governments for their decades of blatant lies. Why do only corporations get to have fun in the courts, let's throw some at politicians for once, spread the love. 

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

1 hour ago, NQSD said:

Intel is in hot water with a lot of law suits, but why isn't AMD getting any lawsuits? AMD also have same types of vulnerability in their chips.

What can you get from AMD? 1$?

 

[LienusLateTips]

7 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

What can you get from AMD? 1$?

 

Isn't that their market cap? So even less.

[Okjoek]

3 hours ago, LordofGangsters said:

There isn't 5 billion dollars total in Rhode Island.

Yet!

[dalekphalm]

I have a feeling that most of the claims will be dismissed without much trouble. 

 

They'd need to prove intent. And since the flaws affect pretty much all modern processors, they also can’t single out Intel as incompetent. 

 

This will be to follow. 

[Ryujin2003]

4 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

pLEasE dOnT mAkE cONspIRaciEs pLEaSe yOu tRIGGer lINuS tEcH tIpS   /s

that was aids to type out but srs, buy low, sell high but I dont think it's a conspiracy. 

I thought the sarcasm was implied. I don't do tinfoil.

 

Lol.

 

Will any of these lawsuits actually come to fruition? It's a bit weird seeing a class action lawsuit from a government entity and not some shady lawyer. (Unless I'm mistaken)