The consumers challenging Intel Corporation over defects in central processing units (CPUs) it made and sold have filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 92-page filing argues that the District of Oregon’s July decision was based on a misreading of the plaintiffs’ allegations, Intel’s mischaracterization thereof, and was internally inconsistent with previous rulings.
The 2018 multidistrict litigation alleges that Intel knowingly designed and sold CPUs with critical security vulnerabilities that made users’ private information accessible to unauthorized access simply to boost CPU speed, and thus best rivals and charge premium prices. The plaintiffs, ordinary consumers and private and governmental entities, claim Intel knew that the security vulnerabilities allowed numerous exploits to steal confidential data stored on their computers yet hid the truth to better its bottom line.
The nationwide class action states multiple claims for fraud and unfair conduct.
The brief recounts how for several years, the parties vigorously litigated before the trial court, with Judge Michael H. Simon making four key rulings allegedly “pivot[ing] back and forth.” The last decision dealt the plaintiffs a fatal blow and is the subject of the present appeal.
In particular, the plaintiffs want the Ninth Circuit to consider whether their claims based on unfair conduct plausibly allege that Intel knowingly designed processors plagued by security vulnerabilities and later abused information embargo periods, or periods of time that a security flaw is known privately, after learning of specific exploits. They also claim that the court wrongly treated those claims as dependent upon the pleading of a material omission.
In addition, the plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing their omission-based claims alleging Intel knew of the vulnerabilities in its processors’ 2006 redesign that compromised their security. In particular, the plaintiffs focus on the information disparity between the parties, arguing that they could not reasonably have discovered those flaws themselves. Lastly, the plaintiffs contend that the district court wrongly ruled that Intel’s omissions were immaterial, whereas they claim the defects concerned core features of security and performance and thus central functions of its processors.
Intel’s answering brief is due Jan. 20, 2023.
Plaintiff representation includes firms Seeger Weiss LLP and Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC, among others. Intel is represented by Williams & Connolly LLP.
