Class Action investigation(s) into Intel 13th-14th gen defects now underway.

[LabRat 891]

Abington Cole + Ellery (Abington Law) has started investigating a class action lawsuit against Intel, and has begun requesting affected-users' information.

Recent reports have highlighted instability issues with Intel's 13th and 14th Generation Core desktop processors. The primary cause of these instabilities has been identified as elevated operating voltages. Intel's analysis revealed that a microcode algorithm was incorrectly requesting higher voltages, leading to instability in the processors. This issue apparently does not stem from the earlier resolved via oxidation problem in Intel's manufacturing process.

It is being reported that the instability issue affecting Intel's 13th and 14th Generation Core desktop processors affects potentially all 65W and higher CPUs -- including KS, K, KF, and non-K 65W (and higher) versions.

Intel is addressing the problem by releasing a microcode patch that corrects the voltage requests. This patch is scheduled for release to partners by mid-August 2024. In the meantime, Intel recommends affected users reach out to their customer support for assistance. The company appears to be addressing instability scenarios through continued validation and updates.

Intel Processor Instability Issues Class Action Lawsuit Investigation 2024 | JOIN TODAY

Intel Processor Instability Issues Class Action Lawsuit Investigation Re: Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th and 14th Generation Desktop Processors.

abingtonlaw.com

As an aside, in trying to research more info, it appears that Intel is already under Class Action, for misleading investors.

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the growth of Intel Foundry Services was not indicative of revenue growth reportable under the Internal segment; (2) the Foundry experienced significant operating losses in 2023; (3) the Foundry experienced a decline in product profit driven by lower internal revenue; (4) as a result the Foundry model would not be a strong tailwind to the Company's IFS strategy; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Class Action Filed Against Intel Corporation (INTC) - July 2, 2024 Deadline to Join - Contact Levi & Korsinsky

/PRNewswire/ -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Intel Corporation ("Intel Corporation" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTC) of a class action...

www.prnewswire.com

 

[thesmokingman]

These class action lawyers sure don't waste any freaking time huh lol.

 

[Lew Zealand]

As usual it's all about class action lawyers getting fat payouts and affected users getting a sweet $1.68 each, assuming they even know anything happened.

 

[LabRat 891]

These class action lawyers sure don't waste any freaking time huh lol.

I can only imagine how many 'tech field' lawyers were waiting for Intel to release their statement on the mess.
Anything short of Intel's total acknowledgment and recall+replacement, was expected to become a class action 'issue'.

Unlike say, Radeon VIIs reliably killing themselves...
This issue is broad in scope and effects both end-user consumers and for-profit professionals/firm, alike.

 

[tabascosauz]

Abington Cole + Ellery (Abington Law) has started investigating a class action lawsuit against Intel, and has begun requesting affected-users' information.

Intel Processor Instability Issues Class Action Lawsuit Investigation 2024 | JOIN TODAY

Intel Processor Instability Issues Class Action Lawsuit Investigation Re: Instability Reports on Intel Core 13th and 14th Generation Desktop Processors.

abingtonlaw.com

As an aside, in trying to research more info, it appears that Intel is already under Class Action, for misleading investors.

Class Action Filed Against Intel Corporation (INTC) - July 2, 2024 Deadline to Join - Contact Levi & Korsinsky

/PRNewswire/ -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Intel Corporation ("Intel Corporation" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTC) of a class action...

www.prnewswire.com

I was entered into a class action for a data breach last year. Got $7.86 out of it.

I don't even remember what the Bulldozer one settled for in the end.

 

[LabRat 891]

I was entered into a class action for a data breach last year. Got $7.86 out of it.

I don't even remember what the Bulldozer one settled for in the end.

Oh, it's not just the ridiculous 'settlement check' amount$...

I have a ~$50 check floating around somewhere, for the CRT monitor+retailer price fixing scandal.
It showed up in 2023.



Delusional take:
IMO, (in this case) settlement checks shouldn't be allowed to be less than the new at-release MSRP of their affected product.
In a better-functioning world, I feel like that would be one of the few things the FTC(etc.) should intervene on.

 

[Sunny and 75]

So it begins.

 

[thesmokingman]

I can only imagine how many 'tech field' lawyers were waiting for Intel to release their statement on the mess.
Anything short of Intel's total acknowledgment and recall+replacement, was expected to become a class action 'issue'.

Unlike say, Radeon VIIs reliably killing themselves...
This issue is broad in scope and effects both end-user consumers and for-profit professionals/firm, alike.

Dude, have you read about the class action against Musk and Tesla over compensation? That was a class action suit brought by one shareholder who owned 9 shares which 10x'd. Class Actions are so full of !@#$ they don't even have to prove or pass a minimum of number of concerned parties.

If they filed in Delaware, they could take advantage of that activist and really party like its 1999.

 

[InVasMani]

You have committed crimes against Skyrim and her people. What say you in your defense?

 

[ty_ger]

When Intel said that irreversible damage could already be done and said that they wouldn't recall the product or accept warranty replacements until instability was proven, a class action was assured.
Good on them!

 

[LabRat 891]

Dude, have you read about the class action against Musk and Tesla over compensation? That was a class action suit brought by one shareholder who owned 9 shares which 10x'd. Class Actions are so full of !@#$ they don't even have to prove or pass a minimum of number of concerned parties.

If they filed in Delaware, they could take advantage of that activist and really party like its 1999.

Fair point.

However, it's good to keep in mind that those kinds of cases are often ignored/dropped unless there's motivations otherwise. (Financial, political, social, etc.)

Unlike that example, Intel's 'damage' is far and wide.
While at first, most-everyone wanted to blame the end-user or mobo manufacturers, the issue is 100% Intel's fault, and effecting far more than just 'gamers'
Ex. One of the reasons this whole issue started being taken seriously, was that datacenters and game devs were noticing the rapid degradation.

Now, imagine how this has been for HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc?
Any >65W TDP 13th or 14th gen SKU is at risk for causing both a glut of support costs, as well as brand/reputation damage. I'd imagine they're gonna have even better-defined 'damages' than a clutch of end-users and small companies.

 

[A Computer Guy]

These class action lawyers sure don't waste any freaking time huh lol.

Didn't Intel get billions from CHIPS act funds? It must be like blood in the water if lawyers were sharks and intel was a whale that got mangled by shipping boat props.

 

[thesmokingman]

Fair point.

However, it's good to keep in mind that those kinds of cases are often ignored/dropped unless there's motivations otherwise. (Financial, political, social, etc.)

Unlike that example, Intel's 'damage' is far and wide.
While at first, most-everyone wanted to blame the end-user or mobo manufacturers, the issue is 100% Intel's fault, and effecting far more than just 'gamers'
Ex. One of the reasons this whole issue started being taken seriously, was that datacenters and game devs were noticing the rapid degradation.

Now, imagine how this has been for HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc?
Any >65W TDP 13th or 14th gen SKU is at risk for causing both a glut of support costs, as well as brand/reputation damage. I'd imagine they're gonna have even better-defined 'damages' than a clutch of end-users and small companies.

Not disagreeing that this class action has merit, that much is obvious. I do wonder how the industry itself is going to handle these. Will they join in or bring their own suits. They probably have things in their service contracts etc etc.

 

[Klemc]

Intel can't exchange all those pieces, it's physically impossible, that will help them to fight the sharks (a good argument).

 

[A Computer Guy]

Fair point.

However, it's good to keep in mind that those kinds of cases are often ignored/dropped unless there's motivations otherwise. (Financial, political, social, etc.)

Unlike that example, Intel's 'damage' is far and wide.
While at first, most-everyone wanted to blame the end-user or mobo manufacturers, the issue is 100% Intel's fault, and effecting far more than just 'gamers'
Ex. One of the reasons this whole issue started being taken seriously, was that datacenters and game devs were noticing the rapid degradation.

Now, imagine how this has been for HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc?
Any >65W TDP 13th or 14th gen SKU is at risk for causing both a glut of support costs, as well as brand/reputation damage. I'd imagine they're gonna have even better-defined 'damages' than a clutch of end-users and small companies.

Do these issues extend to the Xeon lineup or strictly to non-Xeon consumer parts?

 

[Kelutrel]

Just an update, as it looks like for now Intel has every intention to accept and substitute boxed units of 13th and 14th gen CPUs that have shown instabilities due to degradation caused by high voltage. So for these boxed units it looks like the class action will not be needed and actually may fail as Intel is honoring its warranty. The keyword here is "boxed", as this applies only to CPUs that have been bought in packaged units.

On the contrary, as it appears, if you bought a pre-built PC with a 13th or 14th gen CPU from a system integrator (even big ones like HP or Dell...) then you may be in a bit more trouble, as it looks like the SI will pass the ball to Intel, and Intel will pass the ball back to the SI, but none of them will actually take responsibility and substitute your faulty hardware. This appears to happen because Intel have different warranties with system integrators, and also because there may be a mechanism for which Intel can pause or deny claims if further investigation is required (such as the SI designing systems where the CPUs are either run out of spec, or placed in an out of spec environment). So here the class action may have more ground.

Just to raise the mood a bit anyways, if your CPU has not yet shown the signs of critical instabilities, it appears that Buildzoid in this video may have just found a way to keep the newest Intel Default Settings, while also limiting the CPU to less than 1.4v (so to not cause degradation) and get a nice performance boost (compared to having only the standard Intel Default Settings) and lower temperatures. So now Intel may just have to do the same tweak, or something similar, in their mid-August patch and this issue may be solved without incurring in reduced performances. Also, you can just follow the Buildzoid video and have it now.

 

[ShiBDiB]

I was with all of you about the check not being worth it until I got a couple grand from the big 3M military ear pro case. So now I have no issue spending the 10 minutes filling out forms to get in on these.

 

[phanbuey]

Just an update, as it looks like for now Intel has every intention to accept and substitute boxed units of 13th and 14th gen CPUs that have shown instabilities due to degradation caused by high voltage. So for these boxed units it looks like the class action will not be needed and actually may fail as Intel is honoring its warranty. The keyword here is "boxed", as this applies only to CPUs that have been bought in packaged units.

On the contrary, as it appears, if you bought a pre-built PC with a 13th or 14th gen CPU from a system integrator (even big ones like HP or Dell...) then you may be in a bit more trouble, as it looks like the SI will pass the ball to Intel, and Intel will pass the ball back to the SI, but none of them will actually take responsibility and substitute your faulty hardware. This appears to happen because Intel have different warranties with system integrators, and also because there may be a mechanism for which Intel can pause or deny claims if further investigation is required (such as the SI designing systems where the CPUs are either run out of spec, or placed in an out of spec environment). So here the class action may have more ground.

Just to raise the mood a bit anyways, if your CPU has not yet shown the signs of critical instabilities, it appears that Buildzoid in this video may have just found a way to keep the newest Intel Default Settings, while also limiting the CPU to less than 1.4v (so to not cause degradation) and get a nice performance boost (compared to having only the standard Intel Default Settings) and lower temperatures. So now Intel may just have to do the same tweak, or something similar, in their mid-August patch and this issue may be solved without incurring in reduced performances. Also, you can just follow the Buildzoid video and have it now.

The class action will argue that they knowlingly or negligently did this on the consumer side.

There will be another securities litigation class action where the shareholders will sue management for negligence/incometence/etc. as well.

This is the start of many lawsuits and settlements.

 

[ty_ger]

Just an update, as it looks like for now Intel has every intention to accept and substitute boxed units of 13th and 14th gen CPUs that have shown instabilities due to degradation caused by high voltage. So for these boxed units it looks like the class action will not be needed and actually may fail as Intel is honoring its warranty. The keyword here is "boxed", as this applies only to CPUs that have been bought in packaged units.

On the contrary, as it appears, if you bought a pre-built PC with a 13th or 14th gen CPU from a system integrator (even big ones like HP or Dell...) then you may be in a bit more trouble, as it looks like the SI will pass the ball to Intel, and Intel will pass the ball back to the SI, but none of them will actually take responsibility and substitute your faulty hardware. This appears to happen because Intel have different warranties with system integrators, and also because there may be a mechanism for which Intel can pause or deny claims if further investigation is required (such as the SI designing systems where the CPUs are either run out of spec, or placed in an out of spec environment). So here the class action may have more ground.

Just to raise the mood a bit anyways, if your CPU has not yet shown the signs of critical instabilities, it appears that Buildzoid in this video may have just found a way to keep the newest Intel Default Settings, while also limiting the CPU to less than 1.4v (so to not cause degradation) and get a nice performance boost (compared to having only the standard Intel Default Settings) and lower temperatures. So now Intel may just have to do the same tweak, or something similar, in their mid-August patch and this issue may be solved without incurring in reduced performances. Also, you can just follow the Buildzoid video and have it now.

Problem is, as Der8auer pointed out, Intel has stated that degradation is continually occurring. According to Intel's own words, the damage is being done; even if not yet apparent. So, this hurts consumers when the product fails prematurely beyond the warranty period. As he said, this is a problem which opens Intel to litigation. If you accept fault for something which hurts consumers, with a big enough group impacted, it's kind of unavoidable that legal action will occur.
Intel said they won't recall the product or extend the warranty. They are now in a corner, if they don't concede.

 

[phanbuey]

Intel said they won't recall the product or extend the warranty. They are now in a corner, if they don't concede.

im not sure doing either one of those things would help or save them from the lawsuits - it would make the public perception better, but extending the warranty on a faulty chip is adding more legal risk (by extending the period you're on the hook for),.

Regarding recall - probably 10-15% of i9 of cpus have failed so far, to recall all 100% instead of just replacing the failed ones after the patch would cost 8-9x as much. Im not even sure that's a cost they could realistically absorb given not only i9's are affected, so they would have to effectively recall all their RPL CPUs in the last 2 years.

 

[ty_ger]

im not sure doing either one of those things would help or save them from the lawsuits - it would make the public perception better, but extending the warranty on a faulty chip is adding more legal risk (by extending the period you're on the hook for),.

They are already legally on the hook for all the CPUs they admitted fault for. The CPUs typically don't stop working as soon as the warranty expires, therefore the legal responsibility doesn't end when the warranty expires. Legally, Intel already said all they needed to in order to be held liable. The only thing left is to prove damages via some trend information from some source. You prove that the CPUs on average fail x% faster than usual (comparing a patched vs non-patched fail rate, for example), then say Intel owes $yy per CPU on average due to degradation and premature failure, and then add it all up for all the CPUs, and profit.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Also. If system integrators get left holding the bag for Intels problem. That is an extremely good way to incinerate bridges. (we are well past the burning stage.)

If they reject RMAs for integrators. There isnt any way they are going to sit back and take the hit to their reputation as well as swallowing all the cost involved.

Intel should have done a global product recall.

 

[Jacky_BEL]

Problem is, as Der8auer pointed out, Intel has stated that degradation is continually occurring. According to Intel's own words, the damage is being done; even if not yet apparent. So, this hurts consumers when the product fails prematurely beyond the warranty period. As he said, this is a problem which opens Intel to litigation. If you accept fault for something which hurts consumers, with a big enough group impacted, it's kind of unavoidable that legal action will occur.
Intel said they won't recall the product or extend the warranty. They are now in a corner, if they don't concede.

If that is the stance of Intel on this matter , and I would own such a CPU , then I would use it (within spec) day and night so it would fail within the warranty period.
Because damage has likely already been done, and failure rate of these CPU's is near 100% , so make sure it fails soon enough.

 

[Zazigalka]

Finally someone stepping in to compensate customers for being scammed.

 

[phanbuey]

They are already legally on the hook for all CPUs. The CPUs typically don't stop working as soon as the warranty expires, therefore the legal responsibility doesn't end when the warranty expires.

That's generally not true - most of the time a company is not liable for product quality after the warranty period - there are exceptions, but your risk is far less after that period expires.

In this case you may be right if the defect is reported within the warranty period, but even so, they are much less on the hook to replace the cpus after warranty runs out (they can have different options, they don't have to provide the same cpu etc.). Also you can be sued for 'breach of warranty' which is a risk of its own.