1 Shares

Intel is facing a slew of class action lawsuits claiming the tech giant has failed to remedy their Meltdown and Spectre CPU security flaws, significantly slowing down consumers’ technology devices and leaving their personal information vulnerable to hacking.

One of these Intel CPU defect class action lawsuits, filed by two California plaintiffs Steven Garcia and Anthony Stachowiak, alleges Intel’s core processors or CPUs are defective. Specifically, these CPUs suffer from security defect, which causes the CPUs to be exposed to troubling security vulnerabilities by allowing potential access to user’s sensitive information. These alleged security vulnerabilities have been dubbed the “Meltdown” and the “Spectre”.

The Intel CPU defect class action lawsuit says this defect exists in all Intel x86-64x CPUs manufactured since at least 2008 and effects the majority of all MAC and PC desktops, laptops, computers, and servers in the U.S. What makes this even more alarming is that cell phones, tablets, and data stored in a cloud based servers such as those from Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are also affected.

According to the Intel CPU defect class action lawsuit, on January 2, 2018, it was revealed that the “patch” to this security vulnerability would lead to substantial CPU performance degradation. The fix would require root level changes to the Operating System which could slow down the CPU’s performance as much as 50 percent.

One day later, Intel issued a press release in response to the media reports concerning the Meltdown and Spectre defects, stating that they are aware of the issue, but also claim their competitors’ products also have the same problem. Essentially, according the consumer complaints, Intel downplays the CPU defects and has failed to provide an adequate remedy and instead continues to reap sizable profits from selling the defective CPUs.

“To date, [Intel] has been unable or unwilling to repair the Defect or offer Plaintiffs and class members a non-defective Intel CPU or reimbursement for the cost of such CPU and the consequential damages arising from the purchase and use of such CPUs,” Garcia and Stachowiak’s complaint states.

These claims are echoed in at least a dozen other Intel CPU defect class action lawsuits filed in California, Indiana, New York, and Oregon since January 1st which seek to hold Intel accountable for breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and violations of state-specific consumer protection laws.

Garcia and Stachowiak are seeking to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased one or more Intel CPUs and whose personal information was or could be compromised as a result of the Meltdown or Spectre vulnerabilities. Their lawsuit is seeking equitable, injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief.

It will be interesting to see how these individual cases will proceed through the court system or if they will be consolidated into multidistrict litigation or settled before a potential trial. Class Action Wallet will be sure to keep you updated with the latest developments in the Intel CPU defect saga.

Garcia and Stachowiak are represented by William J. Doyle II and Chris W. Cantrell of Doyle APC; and J. Gerard Stranch IV and Benjamin A. Gastel of Branstetter Stranch & Jennings PLLC.

The Intel CPU Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Garcia, et al. v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-00046, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.

The other Intel CPU Defect cases are:

California:

  • Bahcevan v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 5:18-cv-00187
  • Mechri v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 5:18-cv-00379
  • Rinn v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 5:18-cv-00111
  • West v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 5:18-cv-00146
  • Zog, Inc. v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 5:18-cv-00298-EJD

Indiana:

  • Jones v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB

New York:

  • Bernstein v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 1:18-cv-00526
  • Rosenberg v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 1:18-cv-00147
  • United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 1500 v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 2:18-cv-00574

Oregon:

  • Gilman v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 3:18-cv-00193-BR
  • Kintz v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 3:18-cv-00211-BR
  • Mann v. Intel Corp.; Case No. 6:18-cv-00028-MC
0
Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *