FOLLOW US

In a courtroom clash that reads like a legal thriller, Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. have asked a Seattle federal judge to order Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP to cover nearly $2 million in defense costs, claiming the firm’s alleged “misrepresentations” dragged out a doomed lawsuit accusing the companies of conspiring to limit device sales on Amazon’s platform.

According to court filings submitted Monday, the tech titans are seeking $1.41 million from Amazon and $540,000 from Apple to recoup attorneys’ fees from nearly 18 months of litigation they argue should have ended far sooner.

A Lawsuit That Refused to Die

The underlying class action, launched by Steven Floyd in 2022, accused Apple and Amazon of colluding to restrict competition by removing third-party Apple resellers from Amazon’s marketplace. The alleged scheme centered on a 2018 deal permitting only Apple-approved vendors to sell iPhones and iPads online — a pact plaintiffs called anticompetitive and defendants claimed was designed to protect consumers from counterfeits.

But Apple and Amazon say the case lost its legitimacy when Floyd told his attorneys in January 2024 that he no longer wanted to continue. Despite that, the lawsuit lingered until September, burdening the court and the defense with unnecessary work, the companies said.

“Those misrepresentations wasted the court’s resources and imposed substantial expenses,” the motion declared, echoing a court order dismissing the case for counsel misconduct.

Judge Evanson’s Rebuke

The case took a decisive turn when U.S. District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson reversed an earlier order that would have allowed Hagens Berman to amend the complaint with new plaintiffs. The judge cited fresh evidence showing Floyd’s disengagement had been known to his lawyers months earlier.

Court documents revealed that since September 2023, Floyd stopped cooperating in discovery and later confirmed his desire to withdraw completely. The judge dismissed Floyd’s claims with prejudice, but left the door open for new plaintiffs such as Jolene Furdek and Jonathan Ryan to file fresh suits.

In a rare move, Judge Evanson also conducted an in-camera review of Hagens Berman’s communications with Floyd, discovering that the firm had portrayed him as merely “difficult to reach” while he had, in fact, clearly withdrawn from the case.

Hagens Berman Fights Back

The firm insists it acted ethically. In an Oct. 27 motion, Hagens Berman argued that revealing Floyd’s decision earlier would have violated the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct and breached attorney-client confidentiality.

“Counsel acknowledged the court’s frustrations,” the firm wrote, emphasizing that it had a “duty of confidentiality” that constrained its disclosures.

Firm founder Steve Berman doubled down, saying three expert declarations support the firm’s adherence to ethical standards. “We acted appropriately and expect the court will reconsider its ruling,” Berman said, dismissing the companies’ claims as overblown. “The work done will be used by the plaintiffs who will continue pursuing the case.”