Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/368434313/northern-district-of-californian?irgwc=1&content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=33330X911642Xe820509fd5fbc558117c4d81c8541760&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 09:29:56+00:00

Document:
STACHOWIAK, individually and on behalf Case No.
to cure the security vulnerabilities, will dramatically degrade the CPU’s performance.
with massive security vulnerabilities or one with significant performance degradation.
level software patch that will degrade the performance of the CPU.
with this CPU or paid the price he did.
facts Plaintiff Stachowiak would not have purchased this CPU or paid the price he did.
including the defective Intel CPUs at issue.
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, excluding interest and costs.
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.
defective Intel CPUs in California and throughout the United States.
performance as much as 30-50% by some estimates.
OS-level software patch causes the CPUs to slow down.
per cent slow down, depending on the task and the processor model.
been redacted to obfuscate the issue.
based CPUs are exposed to.
the layout or contents of protected kernel memory areas.
processes using what’s called Kernel Page Table Isolation, or KPTI.
memory address spaces, although it is invisible to these programs.
kernel’s overhead, and slows down the computer.
cure these security vulnerabilities will result in substantial performance degradation.
performance of these CPU chips.
sensitive data from computing devices that are operating as designed.
processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits.
significant and will be mitigated over time.
statement today because of the current inaccurate media reports.
help protect against possible exploitation until updates can be applied.
provide the best possible security for its customers.
defective CPUs and offer full compensation required under federal and state law.
like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon will see performance degradation.
and any entity in which the Defendant had a controlling interest.
properly brought as a class action for the following reasons.
can be provided through sales and warranty records and publication.
f. The appropriate nature and measure of Class-wide relief.
comparison to the numerous common questions that predominate.
will be asserted, if any, against Class members’ claims.
37. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of Class members.
class actions and other complex litigation, and who will vigorously prosecute this action.
respect to the Class as a whole.
set forth herein. Plaintiffs assert this count individually and on behalf of the proposed Class.
and Class members in the regular course of business.
third-party beneficiaries of, and substantially benefited from, such contracts.
prices paid for such CPUs.
authorized agents’ and retail sellers’ possession and thus is inherent in such CPUs.
purchased had the CPUs in question not contained the non-repairable Defect.
and other relief as appropriate.
Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code § 1792, et seq.
forth herein. Plaintiffs assert this claim individually and on behalf of all Class members.
an implied warranty of fitness.
California Civil Code § 1791.
that the CPUs did not conform to the applicable warranties.
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.
forth herein, except those allegations seeking a damages award.
under California Civil Code §1781.
acts and practices because it covers transactions involving the sale of goods to consumers.
58. The Intel CPUs are “goods” under California Civil Code §1761(a).
59. Intel is a “person” under California Civil Code §1761(c).
repair or replacement of the Defect.
the sale of Intel CPUs, a defective consumer product.
they did, if at all.
(b) Intel actively concealed a material fact from Plaintiffs and the Class.
disclosing the above material facts from Plaintiffs and the Class, in violation of Cal. Civ.
Code §1770(a)(5), (7), (14) and (16).
court costs and attorney fees, and other relief the Court deems proper.
injured Plaintiffs and all Class members.
in the acts and practices specified above.
Business and Professions Code, commonly known as the Unfair Competition Law.
defective Intel CPUs or providing compensation therefor.
which it refuses to honor.
of unfair competition, in addition to obtaining equitable monetary relief.
competition and Defendant’s misconduct in violation of the state laws set forth above.
or property as a result of such acts and practices as set forth in detail above.
Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.
permitted under Rule 8(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
the conduct challenged in this Complaint.
directly from Class members, Defendant or its authorized retailers.
return such benefits when the retention of such benefits would unjustly enrich Defendant.
obtain such relief, leaving them without an adequate remedy at law.
86. Plaintiffs and Class members seek appropriate monetary relief for such claims.
or retained by Defendant from which Plaintiffs and Class members may seek restitution.
were contained in, but also separate and apart from, the computers they purchased.
designed for the reasons set forth above.
according to proof at trial.
computers Plaintiffs and Class members purchased.
causing harm to Plaintiffs and Class members.
by engaging in the acts and practices specified above.
grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another.
members suffered actual damages as set forth herein.
deceptive conduct on behalf of himself and the Class.
E. Granting such further and other relief this Court deems appropriate.
3 jury on all issues so triable.

References: § 1792
 § 1791
 § 1750
 §1781
 §1761
 §1761
 §1770
 §1021