Apple Sued For Dividing Final Season of Breaking Bad Into Two On iTunes

An anonymous reader writes "Last night's episode of Breaking Bad was one of the most intense in series history, but for those who haven't seen it yet, don't worry, I won't be putting out any spoilers. You see, today's Breaking Bad news has nothing to do with Walter White's slow transformation into Scarface, but rather with a legal suit filed against Apple by a Breaking Bad fan. In a lawsuit that many saw coming, an Ohio man named Noam Lazebnik recently filed a class action suit against Apple upon finding out that the $22.99 he forked over for a 'Season Pass' of Breaking Bad was only good for the first 8 episodes of the show's final season."

Amazon, others doing it too

[XxtraLarGe]

From what I understand, other vendors are doing it as well, and it was due to a decision by AMC. Besides, if they charge $2.99 per HD episode, and the season pass was $22.99, wouldn't it seem peculiar to give such a big price break for 16 episodes? Not trying to excuse Apple, just trying to introduce a little reason into the debate. I think the fault ultimately lies with AMC and the way they decided to break up the season into two parts.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[jonwil]

Apple did not split the new season in 2 parts but they ARE the ones that sold it as a "season pass" and didn't say anywhere that the "season pass" is not good for the entire season.

To me its a fairly simple case of misleading advertizing.

Re:First World Problems

[gl4ss]

*I seriously doubt this was apple!s decision. Wrong party to sue.*

well apple sure was the party that sold the season pass... even if apple wasn't the party to decide that the final season is actually two seasons.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

If it's genuinely not Apple's fault, then Apple gets to sue onwards to the provider of the product to recoup their costs, but either way the consumer's purchase contract was with Apple, so the consumer is right to take it up against Apple.

Normally that is not how it works. Apple can request that they are excluded from the suit and the court can agree. The court has to determine this based on a number of factors. If Apple is simply a middleman or distributor selling a product based on the content holder's wishes they are more likely to be dismissed from the case. Also if competitors have the exact same arrangement, it is more likely the content holder is the one who has to address the suit.

Re:Amazon, others doing it too

[bluefoxlucid]

No, from a legal standpoint it will come down to if it was reasonable to assume the customer knew what this shit meant. If there's a highly buried definition somewhere in doublefine print, folks start looking guilty. Misleading advertisement is a crime, and writing somewhere deep in the manual "You only get 20% of what you pay for, but we call it Full Package and show a picture of the other 80%, just you have to spend 5x more to get the rest really" will not be looked upon favorably by the courts. Putting in "Full Package!*" with "*Complete accessory set shown, sold separately; Full Package references the full standard set, not to include the full accessory set" directly below in half-size print will not get you boned in court, as the judge will look at the plaintiff like he's stupid for not reading the text shoved right in front of his face.

Re:AMC split season 5

[Bill Dimm]

Perhaps someone at Apple made the mistake of thinking they were two separate seasons.

The studio sure seems to be encouraging that mistake. They are selling DVDs saying "The Fifth Season [amazon.com]" on the packaging with no hint that it is half of a season [amazon.com]

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[UnknowingFool]

Again, if AMC is defining the season, that's AMC's liability, not Apple. Not Amazon. Copyright law is clear that content owners have immense power when it comes to distribution. If Apple and Amazon were colluding with AMC to do this, then you have a case. I would think neither Apple or Amazon have the time or werewithal to micro-manage AMC's one show in this way. Like every other content holder, they leave the content holder alone to make their own decisions.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good lord, anything to defend Apple, huh? AMC said it was one season, with a 6-month break in the middle. Apple disregarded that and took it upon themselves to call the second half a separate season. They're not merely distributing it, they're taking the content and sleazily repackaging it in a way that rips off their customers.

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[msauve]

Well, if you go to the AMC website [amctv.com], you'll find videos from the second half labeled "Season 5, Episode 13" and such.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:First World Problems

[Half-pint HAL]

I seriously doubt this was apple!s decision. Wrong party to sue.

Very basic principle of consumer law: sale is a contract between retailer and customer. If I buy a phone and the box is missing a vital component (perhaps even the handset), it's the retailer's responsibility to supply me with the missing goods -- he can't just fob me off with "that's what the manufacturer sent us".

Re:Why is Apple the one being sued?

[mooingyak]

There's a distinction between ambiguous and misleading.

If I say that something is "20% better", the first question you would want to ask is "better how?", since 'better' is not necessarily easy to define. The fine print can clarify what I mean by 'better', because 'better' is ambiguous.

If I say 12 pack of Awesome Brand beer for $10, and when you get it home and open it up there's only 6 beers in there, then you would be rightfully pissed. The fine print can't say "by 12 we mean 6". Fine print can't outright contradict.