LAUREN PAULSON

laurenjpaulson@gmail.com
827 C RANSOM AVE
BROOKINGS, OR 97415
503 470 9709 (out of service)

Plaintiff Pro Se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LAUREN PAULSON, et al.for )
himself and all others similarly )
situated, ) CASE NO:
)
Plaintiffs, ) CLASS ACTION
) COMPLAINT
)
v. )
) DEMAND FOR JURY
) TRIAL
APPLE INC., SPRINT INC )
T-MOBILE INC., AT&TM INC., )
U.S. CELLULAR INC., JOHN DOE )
COMPUTER, JANE DOES )
COMPUTER, )
Defendants )
)

Plaintiff, Lauren Paulson, for himself and for this class action
complaint alleges upon personal knowledge as to himself, as to his own
action, and upon information and belief as follows:
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 1 39


NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an antitrust class action pursuant to section 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, 15 USC Section 2(2004) (the Sherman
Act), brought by Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, those being persons who purchased an Apple
iPhone from Defendant Apple Inc. (Apple) or AT&T Mobility, LLC
(ATTM), Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular or elsewhere, and then
purchased wireless voice and data services for the iPhone from October
19, 2008, through the present (the Class Period).
A. Summary of Material Facts
2. Apple launched its iPhone on or about June 29, 2007. Prior
to launch, Apple entered into secret agreements with the Defendants and
each of them that locked these iPhones to the Defendants as the
exclusive providers of cell phone voice and data services for iPhone
customers through the duration of those consumer services and contracts
to present. (Exclusivity Agreements) As part of the agreements,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 2 39
Apple shared in the revenues and profits of the Defendants and each of
them with respect to the iPhones launched all in bald-face restraint of
trade. The Plaintiff and other class members who purchased iPhones
were not informed and did not knowingly agree to the use of their
iPhones being so locked for any known duration of exclusivity. This
undisclosed exclusivity effectively locked iPhone users into using
certain Defendants and others for a period of time to present, contrary to
those users knowledge, wishes and expectations.
3. To enforce Defendants exclusivity, Apple and the
Defendants, among other things, programmed and installed software
locks or used a locking mechanism on each iPhone it sold or serviced
that prevented the purchaser from switching to another carrier that
competed with one or all of these Defendants and Jane and John Doe
Defendants. Under an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act of 1998, 17 USC Section 1201 (2008) (The Agreements and
DMCA) and other consent agreements of the industry, cell phone
consumers have an absolute legal right to modify their phones to use the
network of the carrier of their choice through arms-length fee and
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 3 39
service duration negotiations. The Defendants have prevented iPhone
customers from exercising those legal rights by locking the iPhones and
refusing to give customers the software codes and SIM cards needed to
unlock them.
4. Under the Defendants agreements with one another and with
Apple, the latter retained exclusive control over the design, features and
operating software for the iPhone, including the code and protocols that
locks iPhones to these Defendants at Apples whim.
5. Through these actions, the Defendants have unlawfully
stifled competition, reduced output and consumer choice, and artificially
increased prices in the aftermarkets for iPhone voice and data services.
B. Summary of Claims
6. In pursuit and furtherance of its unlawful anticompetitive
activities, these Defendants: (a) failed to obtain iPhone consumers
contractual consent to the Exclusivity Agreements between and among
them, the effect of which was to lock consumers into remaining with
their existing carriers or other Defendants when they wanted to obtain
alternative services; (b) failed to obtain iPhone consumers contractual
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 4 39
consent to the Exclusivity Agreements and to having their iPhones
locked to any of the other carriers through Subscriber Identity
Modules (SIM cards), thereby preventing iPhone purchasers from
using any cell phone voice and data service provider other than these
Defendants and each of them; (c) and failed to obtain iPhone consumers
contractual consent to make unavailable to them the unlock code that
would enable the consumers to use a service other than these Defendants
or alternative carriers even though these Defendants routinely provide
such unlock codes for other types of cell phones.
7. These Defendants violated section 2 of the Sherman Act by
conspiring among each other to monopolize the present and aftermarket
voice and data services of the Apple iPhone in a manner that harmed
competition and injured consumers by reducing output and increasing
prices in iPhone aftermarket and by the actions aforesaid and below said
all in illegal restraint of trade as described herein.
8. Plaintiff and class members seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, actual damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, punitive
damages for outrageous conduct beyond socially tolerable conduct,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 5 39
costs, attorney fees and other damages according to proof at trial. As for
equitable relief, Plaintiffs seek an immediate order: (a.) restoring
Plaintiffs phone service, (b.) restraining from conspiring with these
Defendants or others including Third-Party vendors from hindering any
iPhones from being unlocked, from selling iPhones that are
programmed in any way to prevent or hinder consumers from unlocking
their SIM cards; (c.) requiring Apple to provide the iPhone SIM unlock
codes and protocols to members of the class and other iPhone consumers
immediately upon any consumer request, within twenty-four hours of
consumers request without qualification or limitation of any sort
whatsoever, (d.) restraining the Defendants from selling or distributing
locked iPhones without adequately disclosing in writing, in at least 18
point type in a separate document disclosing the fact they are locked to
only work with SIM cards which requires the consumers consent along
with a written and printed consumer signature with the consumers
current address with a copy of same going to the consumers state
attorney general office who shall keep an index of said agreements and
disclosures. Each Defendant shall be required to furnish each consumer
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 6 39
with a one-page step-by-step instruction on the unlocking procedures
equipment and protocols capable of being understood by a twelve year-
old child schooled in the art and science of computers.
THE PARTIES
9. Plaintiff, Lauren Paulson is an individual residing in Curry
County, Oregon, who, on or about February 06, 2012 purchased an
Apple iPhone 4s at the Apple store at Pioneer Square Portland, Oregon
and paid for voice and data service for his iPhone at Sprints and T-
Mobiles stated rates during the Class Period. The Plaintiffs iPhone 4s
is designed by Apple to be able to operate on any domestic carriers
network.
10. Defendants and each of them transact business in the United
States in known and unknown locations locally and throughout the
nation. Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its principal
place of business located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California
95014. Apple and the other Defendants regularly conduct and transact
business in this District or the Portland, Oregon District as well as
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 7 39
throughout the United States. Apple manufactures, markets and sells the
iPhone, among other devices all over the world.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the
Sherman Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 USC Section 15 and
pursuant to 28 USC Sections 1331 and 1337.
12. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC Section
1332(e)(2) because sufficient diversity of citizenship exists between
parties in this action, the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
$420,000,000 and there are more than 100 members in the proposed
class.
13. Venue is proper in this District because a majority of the
Defendants transact business throughout the United States including this
District.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Plaintiffs Injuries:
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 8 39
14. On or about 2009, Plaintiff had his wireless voice and data
telephone service with Sprint. Plaintiff purchased various devices from
Sprint including telephones, modems, Wi-Fi hot spots and routers.
Suddenly, on or about September, 2011, without notice warning nor
consent, Sprint eliminated Defendant Paulsons unlimited data plan,
unilaterally changing the data plan to a limited one. This caused
Defendant Paulsons monthly bill to go from about $60 to $90 per month
to about $600 to $900 per month. Paulson began exploring options. The
Plaintiff purchased his iPhone on February 06, 2012. There was no
notice of the locking issue and Plaintiff had no prior knowledge that his
telephone would be locked to Sprint. Indeed, the Plaintiff had formally
reported Sprints unconscionable fee charges above to Sara Noble of the
Oregon Public Utility Commission and the Oregon Attorney General.
15. On or about April, 2012 Paulson switched his telephone
service from Sprint to T-Mobile. T-Mobile switched the SIM card to T-
Mobile through the services of a Third-Party Retail Computer Store on
April 18, 2012 and Paulson began his telephone service with T-Mobile
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 9 39
using an automatic pay process through Paulsons bank. Plaintiffs
telephone service continued with T-Mobile, without fanfare until:
16. On or about April 25, 2014 T-Mobile unilaterally terminated
Paulsons telephone service without notice or other cause to do so.
Paulsons monthly payments to T-Mobile were current. The Plaintiff has
not had telephone service since that T-Mobile service termination; now
almost a month ago. Judicial notice may be taken that merger
discussions between Sprint and T-Mobile began about the same time.
This was a crucial telephone service termination because Paulson
is the caregiver for an individual located about two miles from Paulsons
residence who was only able to contact Paulson by telephone. During
the month of April to May, 2014, the disabled individual has had
multiple health episodes, but was unable to contact Paulson by telephone
in order to obtain needed episodic and emergency health care. The
individual does not drive.
17. Plaintiff contacted Defendants in order to get his iPhone
unlocked, but at all times material hereto, Defendants refused and
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 10 39
continue to refuse to restore Paulsons telephone service without a phone
device purchase from them and each of them.
18. At all times material hereto, Defendants had various
Exclusivity Agreements with each other which required consumers and
members of this class to purchase a new or alternate telephone if they
switch carriers. At no time did the Defendants disclose or provide notice
of such their agreements to require consumers to purchase new
telephone devices if a consumer changed carriers.
19. Upon information and belief these Defendants can easily
provide unlock codes and SIM cards for cell phones other than the
iPhone if requested by a consumer. At various times the Plaintiff
formally requested said unlocking from these Defendants and each of
them in April and May of 2014 and each Defendant formally refused.
B. The Cell Phone Industry
20. Cellular telephone service began to be offered to consumers in
1983. Cellular telephones operate using radio frequency channels
allocated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Geographical service areas are sometimes known as cells and are
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 11 39
serviced by base stations using low-power radio telephone equipment,
sometimes known as cell towers. The cell towers connect to a Mobile
Telephone Switching Office (MTSO), which controls the switching
between cell phones and land line phones, accessed through the public-
switched telephone network and to other cell telephones.
21. In cellular service there are two main competing network
technologies: Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA). GSM is the product of an
international organization founded in 1987 dedicated to providing,
developing and overseeing a worldwide wireless standard. CDMA is an
alternative technological platform, developed by Qualcomm, Inc., used
in much of North America and parts of Asia.
22. To enable cell phones to send and receive various signals and
services requiring higher data transfer speeds, both CDMA and GSM
carriers adopted technologies to comply with what the industry refers to
as 3rd and 4th generation, or 3G or 4G standards. These technologies
require the cell phone to operate on a separate 3G or 4G network. Later
versions of the iPhone operate on both 3G and 4G networks.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 12 39
23. Of the cellular phone service providers in the United States,
ATTM, T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon (collectively the Major Carriers)
have the most substantial national networks. Other suppliers are
relegated to be resellers of cellular telephone service which they
purchase from these four Major Carriers. ATTM and T-Mobile operate
GSM networks while Sprint and Verizon operate CDMA networks.
24. Unlike personal computers where manufacturers and software
developers can offer products directly to the consumer without having to
gain the approval of Internet service providers and without paying those
providers for access; the wireless carriers and Defendants herein have
used their ability to grant or deny access to their wireless networks to
control both the type of cell phone hardware and software that can be
manufactured and to extract payments from manufacturers granted
access to their networks and customers.
25. The anticompetitive nature of the wireless telephone market
that the carriers have created and facilitated gave rise to the commercial
context in which Apple is able to act in restraint of trade and commit the
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 13 39
other wrongs including perpetration of wide-spread fraud on the
consumers of wireless telephone services of the United States.
C. The Defendants Unlawful Restraint of Trade
26. As stated above, ATTM and T-Mobile iPhones use GSM
technology. GSM iPhones use what is known as SIM cards. The
removable SIM card allows phones to be instantly activated, (a SIM
card is here portrayed:)
and may be interchanged, swapped out and upgraded, all without
carrier intervention. The SIM card itself is tied to the network rather
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 14 39
than to the actual iPhone unless altered by Apple. Cell phones that are
SIM card-enabled generally can be used with any GSM carrier.
27. Thus, the hardware of all GSM compatible cell phones give
consumers some degree of choice to switch among GSM carriers
wireless networks by enabling them to replace their SIM card, a process
that the average individual consumer can do easily with no training by
following a few simple instruction in a matter of minutes. SIM cards are
very inexpensive, now costing less than a few dollars. When the card is
changed to the SIM card of another carrier, the cell phone is
immediately usable on the other carriers network. To switch from
ATTM and T-Mobile, or the other way around, all that is required is this
simple change of the SIM card.
28. These Defendants acting in concert including their trade
associations and standards-setting industry organizations such as the
CDMA Development Group, the Telecommunications Industry
Association, the Third Generation Partnership Project, the Alliance for
Telecommunications, the Open Mobile Alliance, the CSM Association,
the Universal Wireless Communications Consortium, the Cellular
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 15 39
Telephone Industry Association and other Jane or John Doe Defendants
have agreed to implement (Programing Lock) features which
effectively locked individual iPhones so they could not be used
without the unlocking code. GSM carriers obtain a locking code
(normally six digits) unique to each cell phone from the cell phone
manufacturer. Absent obtaining the unlocking code from their GSM
carrier, consumers who purchase a telephone manufactured to work with
one of the two GSM Major Carriers cannot switch to another carrier
without buying an entirely new phone.
29. The two GSM carriers, ATTM and T-Mobile. adopted a SIM-
lock standard that locked each GSM phone to a particular SIM card,
thereby preventing consumers from simply changing their SIM cards to
switch carriers. The unlock code can be provided instantly to the
consumers over the telephone, but these Defendants refuse in order to
force consumers to purchase new telephones.
30. The U.S. Register of Copyrights has concluded that the
access controls [on cell phones] do not appear to actually be deployed in
order to protect the interests of the copyright owner or the value or
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 16 39
integrity of the copyrighted work; rather they are used by wireless
carriers to limit the ability of subscribers to switch to other carriers,
a business decision that has nothing whatsoever to do with the
interests protected by copyright. Exemption to Prohibition of
Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 71 Fed.
Reg. 68472, 68476 (Nov. 27, 2006) (emphasis added)
31. When Apple was thus unable to continue locking iPhones
through the SIM card Program Locks through legal means, it engaged in
a scheme with the other Defendants to continue locking the iPhone
unlawfully, directly and through these Defendants and each of them.
Further, these Defendants conspired among each other to refuse to
provide the simple unlocking facilities and unlocking code from them,
the Jane and John Doe Computer Third Party providers nor to their
consumer customers the Plaintiff and the Class. In a further
conspiracy to perpetuate this fraud on the public, a Defendant trade
association purported to facilitate the unlocking of these phones and
services that are in restraint of trade:
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 17 39
On February 11, 2014, CTIA-The Wireless Association adopted six
standards on unlocking into the CTIA's Consumer Code for Wireless
Service. Implementation of these six standards by major mobile wireless
service providers is supposed to give consumers greater freedom and
flexibility in unlocking their iPhones when in reality these standards are
continuing scheme by the Defendants to obfuscate the ability of consumers to
unlock their iPhones. Participating wireless service providers will
implement at least three of these six standards by May 11, 2014, and all of
these standards by February 11, 2015.
This is another sham. None of the Defendants are following this path
to unlocking nor do they intend to. It is the opposite. On or about May, 2012
the Plaintiff personally canvased the Defendants and each of them. All of
them refuse to unlock the Plaintiffs iPhone nor commence telephone service
to the Plaintiff without the purchase of a new or replacement telephone
device. In a pervasive and organized lie, the Defendants and each of them in
a conspiracy to withhold the truth from the iPhone buying public through the
insidious and pervasive nationwide fiction that .your particular iPhone
cannot be unlocked. The Plaintiff can provide the exact name of the
Defendant employee and the exact address of the Defendant employee
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 18 39
perpetrating this fraud on the public. Moreover, the Plaintiff can provide the
exact chat dialogue record where the Defendants employees are
perpetrating this insidious and pervasive fraud on the iPhone buying public
every day, all day to all iPhone consumers. All to sell telephones!
32. Secretly, and in unlawful restraint of trade, Apple conspired
with these Defendants and others to share in the revenue with the voice
and data services provided to Defendants from iPhone revenue through
this scheme of these Defendants refusing to unlock iPhones.
33. Even though carriers typically engage in a two year contract
with consumers, these Defendants unlawfully conspired to not unlock
iPhones for five years in order to force consumers to stay with the
Defendants as their carrier beyond the normal contractual period because
their iPhones were useless elsewhere and to so increase this revenue-
sharing fund. In summary, there were three angles in this consumer
ruse: First, the carrier would unilaterally raise the fees charged to the
consumer while the consumer was locked to the carrier. Second, the
consumer would be required to purchase a new phone device if the
consumer attempts to avoid those new carrier charges under the old
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 19 39
consumer contract to stay with that carrier for two years; by attempting
to switch carriers. Third, the revenue-sharing period was extended from
the two-year consumer contract period by three years due to the secret
agreement not to furnish unlocking for the five year duration. In short,
these Defendants get the consumer coming and going and going.
34. Meanwhile, the Defendant carriers then unilaterally changed
the data plan provided to consumers in order to generate expanded
revenues for all the Defendants because the consumer was unable to
obtain telephone service elsewhere without purchasing a new telephone;
meanwhile the consumers telephone bills from their extant carrier could
increase ten-fold or more from the new data fee charges.
35. Apple and these Defendants agreed to never provide the
unlock codes to iPhone consumers who wished to replace the iPhone
SIM card either for international travel or to lawfully switch to another
carrier until after their five-year price-fixing revenue sharing agreement
had expired.
36. Unbeknownst to consumers, Apple was selling their iPhones at
the five-year price-fixed amounts; the remainder sale amount made up
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 20 39
by the other Defendants in order to enable these schemes in restraint of
trade aforesaid and under other terms among the Defendants themselves
and under terms not disclosed to the Plaintiff, the Class nor to consumers
nationally.
37. The early termination fees charged by these Defendants are
also in illegal restraint of trade inasmuch as there is no mutuality i.e.. the
carrier may unilaterally change the terms of the agreement or change the
fees into exorbitant (even unlimited) amounts, but the consumer is not in
an equal bargaining position to similarly change the terms of the
agreement or amounts of monthly fees paid. In short, these Defendants
can change The Dealany time they want, but the Plaintiff, and
members of the Class-consumer cannot. That is an unconscionable
contract of adhesion perpetrating a fraud on the consumer and illegal
under both state and federal law.
38. The Defendants and each of them illegally conspired and
unlawfully agreed to take united action to prevent users from
circumventing the SIM card lock protocol. A central purpose of these
agreements of the Defendants is to suppress lawful competition among
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 21 39
cell phone consumers to extend the locking beyond their original five
year plan.
39. These Defendants also conspired to increase the aftermarket
prices for iPhones by advising their consumers to advertise and sell their
locked iPhones on eBay or Amazon or other sites to consumers who
want cheaper iPhones that are locked with their extant carriers due to the
two-year fee agreement.
40. These Defendants conspired to forestall development of an
iPhone CDMA version to stifle competition between ATTM, Sprint, T-
Mobile and Verizon on the alternative platforms. Apple is easily able to
develop an iPhone for use on CDMA networks in addition to the GSM
compatibility. A schoolboy did it immediately after the open iPhone
market began.
41. The iPhone lock out is complete due the overall scheme of
these Defendants and each of them as described herein. No carrier and
few computer stores will agree to obtain or follow the unlocking code so
a consumers iPhone may be unlocked and used with an alternate carrier.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 22 39
This renders a consumers iPhone useless and worthless (except in the
artificially inflated aftermarket).
42. None of these illegal acts or schemes have been disclosed to
the Plaintiff nor to the Class of consumers. In fact, the carriers have
enacted comprehensive networks to prevent consumers from knowing
the true facts recited above.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
43. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated for the purpose of asserting
claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis. Plaintiffs
proposed class (Class) is defined under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and (3), and Plaintiffs propose to act as
representatives of the following class comprised of:
All persons, exclusive of Apple, the Defendants and their
employees, who purchased an iPhone anywhere in the United States
at any time, and who then also paid for voice or data service
from any of the Defendants during the Class Period.

44. The Class for whose benefit this action is brought is so
numerous that joinder of all members is not practical.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 23 39
45. Plaintiffs are unable to state the exact number of Class
members without discovery of the Defendants records, but, on
information and belief hereby state that it exceeds ten million consumers
and purchasers of iPhones sold for use on the Defendants networks
during the Class Period.
46. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class
which predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members. They are:
a. Whether Apple failed to obtain consumers contractual
consent to the fact that Apple had entered into the agreements with the
other Defendants aforesaid;
b. Whether the Defendants failed to notify consumers they
would be unable to switch carriers during the times in question;
c. Whether the Defendants continue to conspire to retain any
and all iPhones to be locked from use with alternative carriers;
d. Whether the Defendants charged exorbitant fees while
consumers were locked to them, knowing consumers would be unable to
obtain service elsewhere without purchasing a new phone;
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 24 39
e. Whether these Defendants failed to obtain consumers
contractual consent to the fact they would not provide consumers with
unlock codes for their iPhones so that the iPhones could be used with
alternative carriers; and
f. Whether these Defendants violated the laws against antitrust and
violated section 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to monopolize the
current market and the aftermarket for iPhone wireless voice and data
services;
47. Each of these common questions of law and fact are identical
for each and every member of the Class;
48. Plaintiff is a member of the Class he seeks to represent, and
the claims arise from the same factual and legal basis as those of the
Class; they assert the same legal theories as do all Class members;
49. Plaintiffs will thoroughly and adequately protect the interests
of the Class, and seek qualified and competent pro bono legal
representation to represent themselves and those similarly situated.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 25 39
50. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class
members would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications and would
cause needless expenditure of judicial resources.
51. Plaintiffs are typical of the Class in that their claims, like those
of the Class, are based on the same unconscionable and fraudulent
business practices and the same legal theories.
52. These Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable
to the grievances of the consumers who form the Class.
53. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the
fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
RELEVANT MARKET ALLEGATIONS
54. The iPhone is a unique, premium priced product that generates
a unique aftermarket for voice and data services that can be used only on
iPhones. During at least the Class Period, the price of iPhones was not
responsive to an increase in iPhone service because:
a. consumers who purchased an iPhone could not, at the
point of sale, reasonably or accurately inform themselves of its lifecycle
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 26 39
costs (that is, the combined cost of the handset and its required services,
parts and applications over the iPhones lifetime); and
b. consumers unknowingly were locked into the iPhone
due to its high price tag and would incur significant costs to switch to
another brand of handset. The aftermarket for iPhone voice and data
services are thus economically distinct product markets, and the service
product that is sold within those markets has no acceptable substitutes.
The geographic scope of the iPhone voice and data services aftermarket
is national.
55. The relevant aftermarket is the aftermarket for wireless voice
and data services (the iPhone Voice and Data Services Aftermarket).
56. The iPhone Voice and Data Services Aftermarket came into
existence immediately upon the sale of the first iPhones, because:
a. the iPhone Voice and Data Services Aftermarket is
derivative of the iPhone market;
b. no Plaintiff or member of the Class knowingly
contractually agreed to permit the Defendants and each of them to
impose any restrictions in this aftermarket;
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 27 39
c. the Plaintiffs and members of the Class should have been
able to terminate service with the other Defendants at anytime;
d. no Plaintiffs or members of the Class knowingly agreed
with anyone to not purchase and use voice and data services from
providers other than these Defendants, including the Jane Doe and John
Doe Defendants.
COUNT ONE
Conspiracy to Monopolize the iPhone Voice and Data Services
Aftermarket in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
(Seeking Damages and Equitable Relief)

57. Plaintiffs and the Class reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1
through 56 above as if fully set forth here.
58. These Defendants, and each of them knowingly and
intentionally conspired with the other Defendants with specific intent to
monopolize the iPhone Voice and Data Services market and aftermarket.
In furtherance of the conspiracy these Defendants agreed, without
Plaintiffs and the Class knowledge or consent to make themselves the
exclusive providers of voice and data services for the iPhone for five
years, contrary to Plaintiff and the Class reasonable expectations that
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 28 39
they could switch to another carrier at any time; certainly at the end of
their two year previous carrier agreements, if there are any.
59. These Defendants unlawfully achieved an economically
significant degree of market power in the iPhone Voice and Data
Services market and Aftermarket as a result of the conspiracy and
effectively foreclosed new and potential entrants from the market or
from them gaining their naturally competitive market shares.
60. These Defendants, and each of them, by their conspiracy
reduced output and competition and resulted in artificially increased
prices in the iPhone Voice and Data Services Aftermarket and, thus,
harmed competition generally in that market.
61. Plaintiffs and the Class were injured in fact by the Defendants
conspiracy and each of them, because they were deprived of alternatives
for voice and data services and forced to pay supra-competitive prices
for iPhone and data services.
62. The Defendants conspiracy aforesaid to monopolize the
iPhone Voice and Data Services Market and Aftermarket violated
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and its anticompetitive practices are
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 29 39
continuing and will continue unless they are permanently enjoined.
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered massive economic injury to them
as a direct and proximate result of these Defendants conspiracy and they
are therefore liable for treble damages, costs and attorney fees in
amounts to be proven at trial.
COUNT TWO
(Outrageous Conduct State Law Violation)
63. Some of these factual matters occurred in the State of Oregon.
Oregon law allows for proceedings against a party for Outrageous
Conduct or for conduct outside the realm that is socially tolerable.
64. The Plaintiff, also a Senior, is a caretaker, for a long-time
friend who is a Senior who lives at another location and who is
disabled. At all times pertinent here, that disabled person had several
health episodes requiring medical care for which the Plaintiff would be
on call to provide assistance and transportation for which the only
means of communications between the Plaintiff and his disabled friend
is by telephone. Due to the actions of the Defendants described above,
this Senior disabled friend was unable to contact the Plaintiff in order to
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 30 39
provide appropriate assistance for recent health episodes. The disabled
man cannot drive. The Plaintiff does not have access to another
telephone and has no land line.
65. The Defendants and each of them, knew of Plaintiffs
extraordinary need for a working telephone as described above, yet
failed to continue the Plaintiffs telephone service for which he had
prepaid through monthly automatic deductions from Plaintiffs bank
account.
66. These actions of the Defendants are socially intolerable
behavior in the extreme justifying punitive damages as an example to
others who might be tempted to engage in unlawful and illegal restraint
of trade of an essential service to the public and to seniors who are
disabled and depend on uninterrupted telephone service.
COUNT THREE
(Mandatory Injunction)
67. The Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests the Court to issue an
immediate mandatory injunction by way of an Emergency
Temporary Restraining Order requiring the Defendants, and each
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 31 39
of them to immediately restore the Plaintiffs telephone service to
the Plaintiffs above described iPhone during the pendency of these
proceedings and afterwards. Balancing the gravity of the potential
harm to Seniors and the disabled who are without telephone service
with the likelihood of success in this blatant and awful price-fixing
scheme weighs heavily in favor of the Plaintiff.
68. Such an immediate restoration of telephone service can cause
these Defendants no harm since the Plaintiff has, upon information and
belief prepaid for telephone service to and including the present due to
the fact the monthly fee is automatically deducted from Plaintiffs
checking account and that monthly deduction would only cease if
Plaintiff provided his bank with appropriate notice which he HAS NOT
done.
COUNT FOUR
(Common Law Fraud)
69. The Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 69 as though fully
set forth here.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 32 39
70. The Defendants fraudulent scheme is an appalling example of
corporate greed and collusion vertically from some of the largest
companies in the world, to mid-level corporations to street retail
operations. As described above, Apple, one of the most sophisticated
companies in the world, rich with ill-begotten cash* stolen from
innocent consumers through an insidious revenue sharing gambit with
ATTM and others while secretly locking consumers to fraudulent
carriers who attempt to lock their customers into a two-year contract
arrangement with a secret agreement with Apple to share revenue for a
five-year locked in period. None of this is disclosed to consumers.
Telephone use is an essential service to consumers lives, happiness and
safety no less than food and shelter.
71. The Defendants, and each of them intended that the consumers
rely on the fraudulent and secret agreements among themselves all to
their detriment.
72. The consumers of iPhones relied on this fraudulent scheme of
these Defendants all to their harm of ten million dollars or such amounts
as are proved at trial.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 33 39
*A Forbes May 13, 2014 article points out that Apple does not have
more cash than Britain and Israel Combined; rather has cash or
cash equivalents of a mere $150 billion socked away from these
Plaintiff consumers.

73. These Defendants and each of them made intentional
misrepresentations of material facts as above and below described
presented to the Plaintiffs and the Class by those Defendants to the
Plaintiffs detriment. The Defendants and each of them made false
representations of present and past facts known to the Defendants and
each of them and concealed facts above and below described. The
Defendants and each of them were deceitful to the Plaintiffs and the
class as above described and below described and actually lied to the
Plaintiffs and to the class. The Defendants and each of them knew the
information used was false or intentionally maintained ignorance that is
or was the truth pertaining to any and all transactions with Plaintiff
consumers herein described. The Plaintiffs and the Class were actually
induced by these Defendants and others to rely on the false and
fraudulent misrepresentations of the Defendants and each of them and
the Plaintiffs and the Class members acted upon those false and
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 34 39
fraudulent misrepresentations of the Defendants. The Plaintiff
Consumers would not have agreed to this fraud had they known the
truth. The Plaintiffs and the Class suffered actual damages due to the
actions of the Defendants and each of them in the amount of ten million
dollars or such amounts as are proved at trial. The Plaintiffs and each of
them have been grossly detrimentally impacted by the intentional
misrepresentations of the Defendants and each of them as described
above and below.

COUNT FIVE
(Unlawful Business Practices)
74. The Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 74 as though fully
set forth herein.
75. The Defendants and each of them have violated state and
federal laws pertaining to business practices at the state level and at the
federal level. A person engages in an unlawful business practice when in
the course of the persons business, vocation or occupation the person:


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 35 39
(1)
Employs any unconscionable tactic in connection with the sale, rental
or other disposition of real estate, goods or services, or collection or
enforcement of an obligation;

76. The Defendants actions aforesaid have caused harm to the
Plaintiffs and the Class in an amount of ten million dollars or as such
amounts are proved at trial.
COUNT SIX
(Right to Jury Trial)
77. The Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to a jury
trial under both state law and under federal law.
78. Some of the actions aforesaid occurred in the State of Oregon.
Under the Oregon Constitution at Article I, section 17 states: In all civil
cases the right of Trial by Jury shall remain inviolate. This means the
right to a jury trial may not be taken away.
79. Similarly, the Plaintiffs and the Class have a right to a jury
trial under the U.S. Constitution of the United States and under the
Seventh Amendment thereto:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 36 39
and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any
Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the
common law.
REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectively request that the Court enter
judgment against the Defendants and each of them as follows:
a. Issuing an Immediate Temporary Restraining Order requiring
the Defendants to immediately restore iPhone telephone service to
Plaintiffs above described iPhone;
b. Permanently enjoining these Defendants from lying to the
public that said described iPhone cannot be unlocked and to
immediately provide the unlocking code and other unlocking facilities
by the speediest means to consumers and the members of the Class
throughout the nation;
c. Permanently enjoining these Defendants from selling locked
iPhones that can only be used with one carrier;
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 37 39
d. Permanently enjoining these Defendants from conspiring to
monopolize the iPhone Voice and Data Services Market and
Aftermarket;
e. Awarding the Plaintiff and the Class treble damages for injuries
caused by these Defendants violations of the federal and state antitrust
laws;
f. Awarding the Plaintiff and the Class punitive damages for
socially intolerable conduct that is outrageous in the extreme;
g. Appointing pro bono counsel for the Plaintiffs;
h. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class reasonable attorneys fees
and costs; and
i. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////




CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 38 39

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

j. Plaintiff and the Class hereby demand a trial by jury.

DATED: Monday, May 19, 2014


___/S/___________________________________________
LAUREN PAULSON Pro Se and for The Class



CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Page of 39 39