Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/368434285/southern-district-of-indiana?irgwc=1&content=10079&campaign=Skimbit%2C%20Ltd.&ad_group=33330X911642Xb23ec9b88d38caf0935d37170b80997e&keyword=ft750noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:25:39+00:00

Document:
State of Indiana who purchased a defective Intel core processor (“CPUs”).
Defect renders the Intel x86-64x CPUs unfit for their intended use and purpose.
Defendant has been unable or unwilling to repair the Defect or offer Plaintiff 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.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2 x86-64x CPU is. there does not appear to be a true “fix” for the Defect. To date. 4. laptop computers. manufacturing. 5. In essence. or continuing to use a computer with massive security vulnerabilities or one with significant performance degradation. distributing and selling defective 2 . The security “patch. Plaintiff and Class members suffered injury in fact and a loss of money or property as a result of Defendant’s conduct in designing. the only “fix” would be to exchange the defective x86-64x processor with a device containing a processor not subject to this security vulnerability. will dramatically degrade the CPU’s performance. utilized in the majority of all desktop. requiring an OS-level software patch that will degrade the performance of the CPU. and was. The CPUs Defendant manufactured and sold to Plaintiff and Class members were not merchantable and were not fit for the ordinary and particular purposes for which such goods are used in that the CPUs suffer from a critical security defect. Therefore.” while expected to cure the security vulnerabilities. Intel x86-64x CPU owners are left with the unappealing choice of either purchasing a new processor or computer containing a CPU that does not contain the Defect. Having purchased a CPU that suffers from this Defect. and servers in the United States 3. Indeed.
C.S.com which he then inserted into his computer.000. and at all relevant times was. JURISDICTION & VENUE 6. 7. and has earned and continues to earn substantial profit from selling defective CPUs. Plaintiff Jones purchased an Intel Core i7-8700KCPU from Newegg. exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff Jones uses his computer for gaming and he specifically purchased the Intel Core i7-8700KCPU for a fast and ideal gaming experience. 3 . He was unaware of the CPU Defect described in this Complaint prior to his purchase. Plaintiff Jason Jones is. and/or emanated from this District.S. and in which at least one member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from a defendant.C. § 1332(d)(2) because this is a class action involving more than 100 class members in which matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5.000. a citizen of the State of Indiana. On or about November 2017. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3 CPUs. PARTIES 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U. Intel has failed to remedy this harm. Had Defendant disclosed such material facts Plaintiff Jones would not have purchased the Intel Core i7-8700KCPU or paid the price he did. was directed to.
as it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. For at least 10 years. The Intel processors are also used in most of the large. The Intel CPU Defect 4 . The security flaw is in Intel’s x86-64 hardware which was first introduced in 2004 and is still in use in the majority of today’s modern-day processors. Intel’s x86-64x processors are the most widely-used chips in virtually all desktop and laptop computers. The design defect is believed to exist in almost every Intel processor made since at least 2004 regardless of the operating system. distributed. and warranted these defective Intel CPUs in Indiana and throughout the United States. 11. news stories revealed that a large number of Intel processors contain a serious design flaw that creates significant security vulnerabilities for any device that uses Intel processors. and at all relevant times was. Microsoft and Amazon. Defendant has marketed. with its principal place of business in California. On or about January 2. 12.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4 9. On or about November 21. 13. Defendant Intel Corporation is. cloud based servers such as those from Google. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 10. it was revealed that the “patch” to this security vulnerability would lead to substantial CPU performance degradation. a citizen of the State of Delaware and of the State of California. 2017. 2018. The “patch” would require root level changes to the Operating System resulting in a substantial decrease in CPU performance as much as 30-50% by some estimates.
[…] Similar operating systems. It has to be fixed in software at the OS level. Meanwhile. depending on the task and the processor model. patches for the Linux kernel are available for all to see but comments in the source code have been redacted to obfuscate the issue. however we’re looking at a ballpark figure of five to 30 per cent slow down. and it appears a microcode update can’t address it. Details of the vulnerability within Intel’s silicon are under wraps: an embargo on the specifics is due to lift early this month. Crucially. Microsoft is expected to publicly introduce the necessary changes to its Windows operating system in an upcoming Patch Tuesday: these changes were seeded to beta testers running fast-ring Windows Insider builds in November and December. The effects are still being benchmarked. Programmers are scrambling to overhaul the open-source Linux kernel's virtual memory system. 5 . perhaps in time for Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday next week. Fixing the Defect using an OS-level software patch causes the CPUs to slow down. Indeed. As The Register reported on January 2. 15. or go buy a new processor without the design blunder. More recent Intel chips have features – such as PCID – to reduce the performance hit. such as Apple’s 64-bit macOS.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5 14. 2018: A fundamental design flaw in Intel’s processor chips has forced a significant redesign of the Linux and Windows kernels to defang the chip-level security bug. will also need to be updated – the flaw is in the Intel x86-64 hardware. these updates to both Linux and Windows will incur a performance hit on Intel products. Intel CPUs have a Defect that is inherent within the CPU itself and/or the result of software or hardware design or manufacturing flaws.
21. stating: Intel Responds to Security Research Findings Intel and other technology companies have been made aware of new security research describing software analysis methods that.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8 20. Class members. The Defect is material because neither Plaintiff. have the potential to improperly gather sensitive data from computing devices that are operating as designed. The Defect is unprecedented in scope in that it exposes millions and millions of Intel-based computers to critical security vulnerabilities and hacking and the “patch” to cure these security vulnerabilities will result in substantial performance degradation. when used for malicious purposes. Intel issued a press release in response to the myriad news media reports concerning the Defect. 23. nor any reasonable consumer would have purchased the defective Intel CPUs at the prices that they did had they known or had they been told by Intel or its retail agents about the Defect prior to purchase. many types of computing devices — with many different vendors’ processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits. 8 . Intel is aware that its CPUs suffer from the Defect that exposes the CPUs to critical security vulnerabilities and that proposed OS-level software patches will slow the performance of these CPU chips. On January 3. modify or delete data. Based on the analysis to date. Recent reports that these exploits are caused by a “bug” or a “flaw” and are unique to Intel products are incorrect. 2018. Intel believes these exploits do not have the potential to corrupt. Intel Admits the Defect Exists and Fails to Provide a Remedy 22.
Defendant’s press release acknowledges the existence of the Defect. ARM Holdings and several operating system vendors. claims other vendors (competitors) products also suffer from this Defect. for the average computer user. Check with your operating system vendor or system manufacturer and apply any available updates as soon as they are available. should not be significant and will be mitigated over time. 9 . Intel has begun providing software and firmware updates to mitigate these exploits. 4.barrons. the current solutions to this issue provide the best possible security for its customers.defective CPUs and offer full compensation required under federal and state law. and.wide approach to resolve this issue promptly and constructively. any performance impacts are workload-dependent.) 24. Intel believes its products are the most secure in the world and that. Intel has failed to cure the Defect or replace Plaintiff’s Intel CPUs with non. including AMD.com/articles/intel-refutes-chip-bug-inaccurate-media-reports- 1515010736 (last visited Jan. However. with the support of its partners. to develop an industry. https://www.” Barrons. which is why Intel and other vendors had planned to disclose this issue next week when more software and firmware updates will be available. 2018). (Intel Refutes Chip “Bug. Intel is committed to the industry best practice of responsible disclosure of potential security issues. Following good security practices that protect against malware in general will also help protect against possible exploitation until updates can be applied.” 25. and downplays the performance impact which it claims “will be mitigated over time. Intel is making this statement today because of the current inaccurate media reports.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9 Intel is committed to product and customer security and is working closely with many other technology companies.” “Inaccurate Media Reports. Contrary to some reports.
Any fix would require extensive changes at the root levels of the OS software. Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and as a class action on behalf of the following class: All persons in the State of Indiana who purchased one or more Intel CPUs from Intel and/or its authorized retailer sellers and experienced the Defect or are likely to experience the Defect during the useful life of the CPU. Thus. but are not limited to: a. and Amazon will see performance degradation. R. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Fed. The class consists of thousands of persons. 30. 29. but have indirect performance impacts. Google. such that joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Whether Defendant’s CPUs possess the Defect and the nature of that Defect. which would assuredly impact the performance of Intel processor-based machines. P.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10 26. 23(a) and (b)(3). which will have a downstream impact to all users of these servers. any “fix” would not only directly impact the performance of a particular user’s Intel-based device. There are questions of fact and law that are common to the Class members and that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. These questions include. Countless servers that run internet-connected services in the cloud will see a dramatic degradation in performance. Civ. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 27. More importantly. cloud-based services like Microsoft. 10 . 28.
and failing to provide the relief required by law. d. The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the proposed Class because they are based on the same legal theories. 31. as the pursuit of thousands of individual lawsuits would not be economically feasible for individual Class members and would cause a strain on judicial resources and increase the likelihood of varying outcomes. 11 . and Plaintiff has no interests that are antagonistic to the interests of the Class members. c. e. Whether Defendant violated applicable consumer protection laws by selling CPUs with the Defect and/or by failing to disclose the Defect. Whether Defendant breached any implied warranties relating to its sale of defective CPUs by failing to resolve the Defect in the manner required by law. 33. yet each Class member would be required to prove an identical set of facts in order to recover damages. A class action is an appropriate and superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 34. The appropriate nature and measure of Class-wide relief. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by selling defective Intel CPUs.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11 b. and f. This action does not present any unique management difficulties. Whether Defendant made any implied warranties in connection with the sale of the defective CPUs. The Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and has retained competent legal counsel experienced in class actions and complex litigation. 32.
or practice by a supplier is a violation of this chapter whether it occurs before. abusive. §24-5-0.” Ind. The DCSA states that “A supplier may not commit an unfair. Code § 24-5-0. The General Assembly has instructed Courts to construe the DCSA liberally to promote these purposes and policies. or deceptive act.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12 COUNT I – INDIANA DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACT.5-4.5- 3. 43. or practice prohibited by this section includes both implicit and explicit misrepresentations. Plaintiff and Class members engaged in “consumer transactions” under Indiana Code § 24-5-0. The Intel CPUs are “subjects of a consumer transaction” under Indiana Code § 24-5-0.5-3. 12 .5-2. 36.5-3 35. 40. during. Such an act. Code § 24-5-0. Intel is a “supplier” under Indiana Code § 24-5-0. Plaintiff asserts this claim individually and on behalf of all Class members under Indiana Code § 24-5-0. Code § 24-5-0.5-2.5-2. omission. 42. “An act.” Ind.5-1(a). 39. omission. The Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“DCSA”) was enacted to protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable sales acts. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs in this Complaint as if fully set forth below. omission. 38. The DCSA applies to Defendant’s acts and practices because it covers subjects of consumer transactions. Ind. or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Under the DCSA. 41. including the purchase of Intel CPUs. or after the transaction. 37.
in writing. or by electronic communication. The DCSA further provides that: Without limiting the scope of subsection (a). 45.5-3. artifice. unknown to Plaintiff and Class members. style. the following acts. Intel’s violations were “incurable deceptive acts” because they were done “as part of a scheme.” rather than merely a “deceptive act. That such subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship.e. and the following representations as to the subject matter of a consumer transaction. 2. grade. 48. i. Intel committed unfair and deceptive acts by representing that the Intel CPUs had performance. if it is not and if the supplier knows or should reasonably know that it is not. By designating a violation as an “incurable deceptive act. 46. made orally. 13 . or benefits it does not have which the supplier knows or should reasonably know it does not have.5-2(a)(8). uses.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13 44. by a supplier. characteristics.” the DCSA defines the violation as one in which notice is not required. in violation of Indiana Code § 24-5-0. accessories. That such subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard. approval. Code § 24-5-0. if at all.” Ind. performance. or model. Defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts. or benefits which Intel knew or should reasonably have known they did not have. are deceptive acts: 1. they would not have purchased the CPUs at the prices they did. or device with intent to defraud or mislead.5-3. quality. Ind. characteristics. If Plaintiff and Class members had known of the Defect in the Intel CPU. Code § 24-5-0. the Intel CPUs were defective. 47.
treble damages. 53. 52. including Plaintiff and Class members. Defendant and its authorized agents and resellers sold Intel CPUs to Plaintiff and Class members in the regular course of business. damaged. 14 . Pursuant to agreements between Defendant and its authorized agents and re-sellers. the stores Plaintiff and Class members purchased their defective Intel CPUs from are authorized retailers and authorized CPU service facilities. and reasonable attorneys’ fees. of average worth in the marketplace. in a class action. actual damages. a product of a high enough quality to make it fit for sale. these CPUs were of merchantable quality (i. were free from material defects and were reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which they were intended or used. Defendant either was or should have been aware of the particular purposes for which such CPUs are used. In addition. usable for the purpose it is made. 51. COUNT II – BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 50. Defendant impliedly warranted to members of the general public.e. Plaintiff and Class members relied on the incurable deceptive acts of Intel and are therefore entitled to recover. or not broken.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14 49.. unworkable. was of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the trade or that would pass without objection in the trade. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth below. statutory damages. and that Plaintiff and the Class members were relying on the skill and judgment of Defendant to furnish suitable goods for such purpose. contaminated or flawed).
including damages. Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages and continue to suffer damages. 55.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15 Plaintiff and Class members are third-party beneficiaries of. including economic damages at the point of sale in terms of the difference between the value of the CPUs as warranted and the value of the CPUs as delivered. specific performance. Defendant breached its implied warranties by selling Plaintiff and Class members defective Intel CPUs. 54. Defendant has refused to recall. costs of suit. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of its implied warranties. rescission. Plaintiff and Class members either have or will incur economic. 15 . attorneys’ fees. repair or replace. 56. The Defect in the Intel CPUs existed when the CPUs left Defendant’s and their authorized agents’ and retail sellers’ possession and thus is inherent in such CPUs. 57. Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to legal and equitable relief against Defendant. and substantially benefited from. The Defect renders the Intel CPUs unmerchantable and unfit for their ordinary or particular use or purpose. and other relief as appropriate. all Intel CPUs or any of their defective component parts or refund the prices paid for such CPUs. incidental and consequential damages in the cost of repair or replacement and costs of complying with continued contractual obligations as well as the cost of buying an additional CPU they would not have purchased had the CPUs in question not contained the non-repairable Defect. such contracts. free of charge. Additionally.
with interest thereon. REQUEST FOR RELIEF A. Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed. Defendant was negligent in the manufacture and design of the CPUs containing the Defect. as they now own a computer with a CPU that due to such manufacturing or design defect is subject to invasion of a supposedly core protected part of the CPU and decreased performance. Certification of the Class requested above and appointment of the Plaintiff as the Class Representatives and his counsel as Class Counsel. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth below. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth below. which CPUs were contained in. Defendant has received and retained funds properly payable to the Plaintiff and Class members under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience Defendant ought not to retain those funds. 64. the computers Plaintiff and Class members purchased. 59.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16 COUNT III – NEGLIGENCE 58. to the Plaintiff and Class members. but also separate and apart from. 16 . 61. Defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor and reasonably foreseeable in causing harm to Plaintiff and Class members. 60. Defendant should be required to pay the improperly received and retained funds. in an amount according to proof at trial. COUNT IV – UNJUST ENRICHMENT/MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED 62. 63.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff requests a jury trial on any and all counts for which trial by jury is permitted.com vmiller@cohenandmalad. injunctive. #8786-49 Richard E.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad. Awarding Plaintiff and Class members all proper measures of equitable monetary relief and damages. /s/Lynn A. D. Dated: January 4. including restitution and restitutionary disgorgement. Toops Irwin B. Awarding Plaintiff’s reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.Case 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17 B. Levin. Toops. and declaratory relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Miller. IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2495 ilevin@cohenandmalad. 1400 Indianapolis. C.com ltoops@cohenandmalad. #26495-53 Lynn A. plus interest to which they are entitled. 2018 Respectfully submitted. Ste.com Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Plaintiff Class 17 . #12007-49 Vess A. #26386-49A COHEN & MALAD. All other relief that the Court finds just and proper. Awarding equitable. LLP One Indiana Square. Shevitz. and E.
How to Find CPU Utilization Statistics (for a w..
Michael Bailey v. Teller County, et. al.

References: § 1332
 § 1391
 §24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 § 24
 v.