This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumers Legal Remedies Act
Unfair Competition

Christopher Parker, Ed Shapiro, Steven Chernus, and James Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Logitech Inc., and Does 1-10

Published: Aug. 6, 2021 | Result Date: Jun. 30, 2021 | Filing Date: Aug. 10, 2015 |

Case number: RG15781276 Settlement –  $850,000

Judge

Brad S. Seligman

Court

Alameda County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Laurence D. King
(Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP)

Matthew B. George
(Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP)

Mario M. Choi
(Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP)


Defendant

Martin K. Deniston
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)

Robert M. Anderson
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)

Craig C. Hunter
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)


Facts

Logitech, Inc. sold high definition digital video home security systems that were marketed to "help consumers protect what's important" and promised "peace of mind in a box." Logitech claimed these Alert Systems would provide reliable home security and buyers could use Logitech's new technology to view live feeds from their security cameras on their computers, smartphones, and tablets. Christopher Parker brought a class action against Logitech alleging that the cameras experienced a high-rate of failure and the software was plagued with bugs and glitches that made the Alert Systems unreliable and inoperable, leading customers to be unprotected.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant violated California's Unfair Competition Law when defendant designed and sold the Alert Systems with numerous defects and failed to honor its warranties leaving customers at a risk of safety. Plaintiff contended defendant violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act when defendant represented the Alert Systems to be of a particular standard, quality, or grade, which it was not. Plaintiff contended defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act when defendant sold a defective product and failed to honor its warranties. Plaintiff also contended defendant violated the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act when defendant no longer provided replacement parts or repair services. Plaintiff contended defendant breached an express warranty by failing to disclose any defects and failed to honor any warranty. Plaintiff contended defendant breached an implied warranty of merchantability when the Alert Systems were marketed to provide plaintiffs and other customers with home safety in the form of digital evidence in the event of a robbery or home invasion.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all of the contentions.

Result

The case settled for $850,000.


#137443

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390