Apple (AAPL)

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to

25

Table of Contents

dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. On January 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which seeks restitution, injunctive relief, unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees. On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. A hearing on plaintiffs’ appeal took place on October 8, 2009.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add a minor plaintiff and claims regarding alleged risks of hearing loss to young people. The hearing on the motion to amend took place on April 24, 2009, and the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion with leave to resubmit it.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a

39

Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 11, 2008. On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ appeal is pending.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to add a minor plaintiff and claims regarding alleged risks of hearing loss to young people. The hearing on the motion to amend is scheduled for April 24, 2009.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a

35

Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 11, 2008. On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ appeal is pending.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. At the request of plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 11, 2008. On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ appeal is pending.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. At the request of plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced
hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of
iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a
purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was
subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose
the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200
(unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for
redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the
Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 11, 2008. On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 16, 2008, the
Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. On July 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ appeal is pending.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a

34

Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 11, 2008. On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. At the request of plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a

32

Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 11, 2008. On February 15, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on April 21, 2008. The Court has not yet issued a ruling.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. At the request of plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law-based claims, which was heard on June 4, 2007. On December 14, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion, with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 11, 2008. The Company’s response to the third amended complaint is not yet due.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. At the request of plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company's iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law based claims. The court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 4, 2007 but has not yet issued a ruling.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. At the request of plaintiffs' counsel, the court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company's iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings
concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple
Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on
behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California,
and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims
equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on
January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California
law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California
Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana
law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law based claims. The court held a
hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 4, 2007 but has not yet issued a ruling.

A
similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on
February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. At the request of plaintiffs' counsel, the court has postponed class certification
proceedings in this action indefinitely.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006.  The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class.  On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law based claims.  The court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 4, 2007 but has not yet issued a ruling.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec.  At the request of plaintiffs’ counsel, the court has postponed class certification proceedings in this action indefinitely.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006.  The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class.  On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law based claims.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec.

Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.

This action alleges that the Company’s iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users.  The Birdsong action was initially filed on January 30, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana asserting Louisiana causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers.  A similar action (Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.) was filed on January 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before January 31, 2006.   The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed.  An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson.  After the Company filed a motion to dismiss on November 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on January 16, 2007.  That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub-class.  The Company has until March 1, 2007 to respond to the amended complaint.

A similar complaint, Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc., was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on February 1, 2006, seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec.

31