March 6, 2017

New Child Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Filed Against the Archdiocese of Agana and the Boy Scouts of America

(Tamuning, Guam) — The lawsuit is the first lawsuit filed against the Boy Scouts of America, the first lawsuit filed by an abuse survivor who alleges he complained about the abuse to the Archdiocese, and the first lawsuit filed by an abuse survivor who is jointly represented by a law firm from Guam and from the mainland.

A new sexual abuse lawsuit was filed today against the Archdiocese of Agana, the Boy Scouts of America, and Father Louis Brouillard, a former priest who served within the Archdiocese.

The plaintiff, Anthony “Tony” Flores, alleges he was sexually abused by Father Brouillard in the late 1970s when Mr. Flores and his family were parishioners at San Vicente Ferrer Catholic Church in Barrigada, Guam.

Mr. Flores alleges that he was an altar boy and parish Boy Scout when Brouillard used his position as a Catholic priest and Boy Scout leader to sexually abuse him. He alleges that Brouillard abused him multiple times in multiple occasions, including at an annual Boy Scout Jamboree. Mr. Flores claims he was approximately sixteen years old at the time of the alleged abuse.

Out of the recent cases filed against the Archdiocese, Mr. Flores is the first plaintiff to allege that he complained to the Archdiocese about the abuse by Father Brouillard but nothing was done. Mr. Flores alleges that he told Monsignor Zoilo Camacho that Father Brouillard was sexually abusing children at San Vicente Ferrer parish, but Monsignor Camacho did nothing in response. Instead, Mr. Flores alleges that Monsignor Camacho “snapped at him” and told him to “be quiet and get out of my office.”

Mr. Flores decided to come forward to help other abuse survivors and to seek closure: “I complained because I wanted to try to protect the other boys and I want to make sure they know I tried to protect them. If other people complained, or if other people know the Archdiocese or Boy Scouts were aware of what he was doing, I hope they will come forward, too.”

Mr. Flores is also the first plaintiff to name the Boy Scouts of America and the Aloha Council of the Boy Scouts of America as defendants. In his complaint, Mr. Flores alleges the Boy Scouts and their local council knew or should have known that Father Brouillard was using his position as the Scoutmaster of the Boy Scout Troop for San Vicente    Ferrer Catholic Church to sexually abuse children. Mr. Flores alleges that “it was well-known for years that Brouillard used his position as Scoutmaster to take boys swimming in the nude and to sexually abuse young Scout campers during overnight and day trips.”

The complaint further alleges that the Boy Scouts of America knew that men like Father Brouillard were using leadership positions within Boy Scouts to groom and sexually abuse children, but nothing was done to warn them of that danger.

According to the complaint, the Boy Scouts in the 1920s began keeping records on adult volunteers that it deemed to be “ineligible” to volunteer for various reasons, including sexual abuse of children. Between 1965 and 1985, the complaint alleges the Boy Scouts created 1,123 files regarding Scout leaders who were alleged to have engaged in “perversion” with children, which is an average of more than one new file per week.

For example, in 1971, the Chamorro Council Scout Executive, Roger Pelz, reported that the Assistant Scoutmaster of Troop 32, David Joseph Ellington, initiated sexual contact with two young boys at the U.S. Coast Guard Naval Station in Guam. Mr. Ellington subsequently left the area and relocated to Phoenix, AZ where he attempted to re-enroll in Scouting.

Mr. Flores alleges that despite knowing that more than a thousand men like Mr. Ellington had used Scouting to sexually abuse children, the Boy Scouts never warned him, his guardians, or other children about the danger of sexual abuse in Scouting.

Mr. Flores alleges the Boy Scouts knew that the ineligible volunteer file system was not working to prevent children from being sexually abused by Scout leaders. For example, the complaint alleges that in 1976, shortly before Mr. Flores claims he was abused, a Boy Scout executive wrote a confidential internal memorandum about the “perversion” files and acknowledged that “the Scout executive learns of improper conduct only after the individual has dropped out of Scouting or has been removed by the responsible local chartered organization.” Mr. Flores alleges the memorandum is an admission “that BSA’s existing policies and procedures were not working to protect boys from being sexually abused by Scout leaders.”

Mr. Flores’s lawsuit is also the first lawsuit to be filed jointly by a Guam law firm and a law firm from the mainland. Mr. Flores is jointly represented by Kevin Fowler of the Guam law firm of Dooley Roberts Fowler & Visosky LLP and Michael Pfau of the mainland law firm of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC.

According to Fowler, his law firm teamed-up with Pfau in order to help child abuse survivors protect and exercise their rights: “Over more than 20 years, our firm has represented dozens of at risk children who find themselves involved in the Guam court system. It was only natural for our firm to step up to help survivors of child abuse, but we wanted to make sure that we teamed-up with a law firm that has a significant amount of experience in this unique area of the law.”

Pfau and his firm have represented hundreds of sexual abuse survivors across the United States, including many cases against the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America. He has also been closely involved in a number of the Catholic bankruptcies. Pfau is interested to see how the Archdiocese and Boy Scouts handle the lawsuits that have been filed: “I’ve handled many abuse cases against the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts. They normally start by denying everything, and the Church will usually try to hide behind the First Amendment to avoid accounting for what it knew.  If the Archdiocese wants to be transparent, it should release its files on Father Brouillard and other priests who have been accused of molesting children. The Church has done this in Chicago and other places, so there is no reason the Archdiocese cannot do it here.”

Fowler is hopeful the lawsuits will lead to closure for Mr. Flores, other abuse survivors, and the local community: “The recent change in the law for child sexual abuse survivors is important because their abuse was too often kept in the dark. A lot of abuse survivors do not realize until much later in life how badly they were harmed by the abuse, and taking control of what happened is usually the first step toward closure. The abuse survivors, and our community, deserve to know not just what happened, but how it happened and how it can be prevented in the future.”

January 25, 2017 and Its Executives Named in Four New Lawsuits in Washington, California, Texas, and Alabama

The lawsuits are believed to be the first cases in the country where the company’s CEO and owners are named as defendants.

Four new lawsuits were filed today against the owners and operators of, including the company’s CEO, Carl Ferrer, and two of the website’s long-time owners, James Larkin and Michael Lacey.


The plaintiffs in each lawsuit allege they were teenager girls when they were sold for sex on the website by sex traffickers.  Two plaintiffs jointly filed suit in Washington, one plaintiff filed suit in California, one plaintiff filed suit in Texas, and one plaintiff filed suit in Alabama.

Jason P. Amala, a Seattle attorney who jointly represents four of the five girls, believes the four lawsuits are the first civil claims to be filed against Ferrer, Larkin and Lacey.  In the lawsuits, the girls allege that Ferrer, Larkin, and Lacey are liable because they knew they were profiting from illegal sex trafficking. On Tuesday, the three men appeared in court in California in response to 39 criminal counts for allegedly facilitating prostitution and sex trafficking.

Amala believes the lawsuits are the first cases to be filed since January 9, 2017, when the company purported to shut down the “escort” section of its website due to “censorship” by the United States government.  The “escort” section was shuttered within hours after the United States Senate issued a scathing report about the company’s alleged role in online sex trafficking.

The next day, Ferrer, Larkin, and Lacey appeared before a panel of U.S. Senators and refused to answer any questions.  Instead, each invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.  The men were joined by the website’s Chief Operating Officer, Andrew Padilla, and corporate counsel, Elizabeth McDougal, who also refused to testify and invoked the Fifth Amendment.

The defendants named in the lawsuits include a number of U.S. and foreign companies that were allegedly involved in running the website or were used to conceal its profits.  Some of the lawsuits allege the companies are liable because they profited from the website “even though [they] knew those profits were derived from illegal conduct.”

In response to prior lawsuits, the website has asserted it is immune from suit under a federal law known as the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”).  The CDA provides websites immunity from suit for content posted by third parties so long as the website does not help create or develop the content.  Websites also have immunity if they edit content, but only if the content is edited in good faith.

According to Amala, the four lawsuits are being filed now because of the Senate report:  “For years the website has publicly claimed they were trying to remove sex ads.  That was the company line, but the Senate report shows that was not true.  The report details how the website, at the direction of its top executives, was systematically editing sex ads to make it less obvious that they were for sex.  They then posted the sanitized sex ad for a fee and kept the profits.”

Some of the complaints cite internal company emails that the plaintiffs claim support their allegations.  In one, Ferrer said it would be “too harsh” to ban advertisements that contained words or images that indicated the ad was for sex.  Instead, Ferrer said it was “[b]etter to edit by removing bad text or removing bad language” so that users could “adjust.”

The complaints also quote from deposition testimony that Amala obtained from a former employee of  In his deposition, the former employee agreed that his job was “to basically sanitize ads for prostitution.”  The complaints allege that the employee “would then post the sanitized ad, even though he knew the ad was a person who was trying to sell sex for money.”

The plaintiffs allege they were advertised on the website at various times between 2013 and late 2015.  According to the Senate report, generated $135 million in revenue in 2014, and the vast majority of that revenue was from sex ads.

Washington:  The Washington lawsuit was filed on behalf of two teenage girls who are identified as R.O. and K.M.  R.O. alleges she was 14 to 15 years old, and K.M. alleges she was 16 years old, when they were sold for sex on the website.  Each girls alleges she was sold for sex in the greater Seattle area.  R.O. alleges her ads appeared on the website from October 2014 until December 2015.  K.M. alleges her ads appeared in early 2015.  Both girls allege they were repeatedly sexually abused as a result of being advertised for sex on the website.

California:  The California lawsuit was filed on behalf of a teenage girl who the complaint identifies as “Jane Doe.”  Jane Doe alleges she was 15 years old when she was sold for sex on the website.  Jane Doe alleges she was sold for sex in Riverside County, California.  Jane Doe alleges her ads appeared on the website for weeks in August 2015.  Jane Doe alleges she was repeatedly sexually abused as a result of being advertised for sex on the website.

Texas:  The Texas lawsuit was filed on behalf of a teenage girl who identified as “J.M.”  In her complaint, J.M. alleges she was 15 to 16 years old when she was sold for sex on the website.  J.M. alleges she was sold for sex in Hawaii, but filed suit in Texas because Dallas, Texas, was the principal place of business for the website during the time she was abused.  In October 2016, authorities raided the Dallas offices of the website after its CEO, Carl Ferrer, was arrested.  J.M. alleges her ads appeared on the website from March 2015 through September 2015.  J.M. alleges she was repeatedly sexually abused as a result of being advertised for sex on the website.

Alabama:  The Alabama lawsuit was filed on behalf of a woman identified as “K.R.”  In her complaint, K.R. alleges she was 17 years old when she was sold for sex on the website.  K.R. alleges she was sold for sex in Houston County, Alabama.  K.R. alleges her ads appeared on the website between May 2013 and August 2013.  K.R. alleges she was repeatedly sexually abused as a result of being advertised on the website.

The four lawsuits are not the first lawsuits to be filed against the website.  In 2012, Amala and his law firm, in conjunction with Tacoma lawyer Erik Bauer, filed a separate lawsuit in Washington on behalf of three minor girls who allege they were sold for sex on the website in 2010.  The website moved to dismiss the case, citing the CDA, but the trial court denied the motion.  In October 2015, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision and concluded the plaintiffs should be allowed to move forward with their case so they could try to prove their allegations that the website was actively involved in editing their ads.  That case is currently scheduled to begin trial in Pierce County, Washington, in May 2017.

Amala believes these are important test cases regarding the CDA:  “I am proud of our clients for standing up for themselves and for thousands of other women and children who were trafficked for sex through this website.  The website has gone to great lengths to conceal its involvement in sex trafficking, but the truth is finally coming out.  Congress did not intend to give immunity to a website that created an online marketplace for sex trafficking, let alone a website that actively sanitized sex ads under the cover of trying to prevent sex trafficking.”

October 7, 2016 CEO Arrested Over Sex Trafficking Allegations

After a three-year criminal investigation, state prosecutors in California have brought criminal charges against the CEO, Carl Ferrer, and two owners of the website, alleging they were complicit in sex trafficking crimes.

The company also finds itself embattled in civil litigation brought by three minors who were trafficked for sex on the website when they were young teens in 2010.  The girls are jointly represented by our law firm and Erik Bauer, a Tacoma attorney.  Last year, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a trial court’s order that the three girls could move forward with their allegations that Backpage knowingly created an online marketplace for sex trafficking and then helped traffickers create their ads for sex.

Carl Ferrer’s arrest comes on the heels of a Pierce County Superior Court judge ordering Mr. Ferrer to produce personal email records relating to his involvement with the website’s “Escort” section, which the plaintiffs allege is blatant online sex trafficking and prostitution.

September 23, 2016

Guam Sexual Abuse Victims – Important Law Change

On September 23, 2016, the Governor of Guam courageously signed a bill ending the civil statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases.  For survivors of childhood sexual abuse, this means they may be able to seek justice against abusers and organizations that allowed abuse to occur.  Leading up to the bill’s passage, reports of sexual abuse have been mounting against the Catholic Archbishop of Guam, Anthony Sablan Apuron, who has been accused of molesting at least five altar boys in the 1960s and 1970s.  Accusations of sexual abuse have been also been reported in recent years against other Catholic priests that served in Guam, including Fr. Louis Brouillard, Fr. Andrew Mannetta, Fr. Randy Nowak, and Fr. John Wadeson.

Sexual Abuse Victims’ Rights

Victims of child sexual abuse, even if it happened decades ago, may have the right to bring a lawsuit against perpetrators and institutions that allowed abuse to happen.  Even if your abuser is no longer alive, you may still be able to sue the institution for its part in enabling the abuser’s access to children.  We have represented dozens of men and women who were abused by Catholic priests, Boy Scout leaders, foster parents, family members, and other trusted figures.  Time and time again, we have seen that instead of taking action against accused abusers, institutions turned a blind eye or simply moved the abuser to a new location, where the cycle of abuse continued.

Sexual Abuse Attorneys

If you or a loved one was a victim of sexual abuse as a child, the new law change means you may be able to bring a lawsuit and obtain justice.

Notice: Our attorneys are not licensed to practice in Guam, but we often associate with attorneys in other jurisdictions to help represent survivors of child abuse.  In so doing, we have represented survivors of sexual abuse all across the United States.

July 1, 2016

Credit/Debit Card Receipt Lawsuits (FACTA)

Credit card and identity theft are all too common. As a result, there are laws and acts in place to minimise the risk, and to keep the public as safe as possible. One method in place to protect consumers like you from credit card or identity theft involves the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act or FACTA which was put in place in 2003. This act stipulates what a retailer can and can’t print on a receipt. Essentially, whatever information is printed on a receipt must not enable someone to piece together the credit card or debit card information of a particular customer.

As a result of FACTA, merchants cannot print card numbers outright on a receipt. Instead, a process of truncation is used. In line with this, card numbers are masked with symbols such as #’s or *’s to ensure that the card holders details are kept hidden. Failure to do so can result in that merchant being charged with an FACTA violation.

Violations of FACTA

FACTA states: “no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.”

In line with the above, FACTA violations can occur as a result of merchants, such as garages, restaurants, or retailers doing one or more of the following:

  • All or part of the expiration date of a credit or debit card is printed on a receipt (e.g. if a card expiration number was September 2021, it would be a violation if any number that suggests that date, such as EXP. 09/21, or EXP. 09/2021 or EXP. **/21).
  • 5 or of the last 5 digits of a card number, or printing any of the other digits (even if it is less than 5). For example, if a card number was 2222-4444-6666 a merchant would be violating FACTA if they printed any of the following: 222*-****-**66, or 2***-4***-6666, or even ****-44**-****.

Sample Receipt Violating FACTA

Has a merchant violated the FACTA on your receipt?

If you have received a receipt from a garage, restaurant, retailer, or other merchant, and you think that it had any of the above details printed on it, then your rights have been violated and as a consumer it is well within your rights to file a FACTA class action lawsuit to obtain a recovery. If successful with the lawsuit, you could obtain compensation, even if no identity theft occurred as a result of the information on the receipt.

Contact an attorney for free

If you have a receipt that violates FACTA, please fill out the form below and we’ll contact you about your rights.

June 20, 2016

Express Locations Employment Lawsuit – Investigation

We are currently investigating a potential class action lawsuit against Express Locations LLC (Express Locations), a T-Mobile cellular phone and phone products retail business, on behalf of current and former employees.  It has come to our attention that Express Locations may be violating state and national wage and labor laws.  Please contact us via the form below if you are a current or former employee and have information to share.  Your information will be kept confidential.

Express Locations may have violated the rights of its employees in the following ways:

  • Not paying overtime to employees who worked more than 40 hours per week
  • Requiring employees to attend meetings “off the clock.”
  • Charging employees for lost or stolen merchandise, resulting in pay below minimum wage.

Express Locations has locations in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

If you don’t work for Express Locations, but a different employer and you have similar complaints, please contact us via our Contact page.

April 21, 2016

Hunter Donaldson & Grays Harbor Community Hospital

Our law firm has filed a class action lawsuit regarding medical services liens that were filed by Grays Harbor Community Hospital and a company called Hunter Donaldson against you and hundreds of other people in Grays Harbor County.

Here is a news article about the lawsuit against Grays Harbor Community Hospital:

Some of the liens were fraudulently created or otherwise legally invalid.  We are investigating whether you may have a claim in this case and your potential participation in the lawsuit.

Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.  We have a copy of your lien(s) on file and will be happy to send them to you.

If you’d prefer to email us, send an email to

Again, there is no charge to you for this service and you may be eligible for a monetary recovery.

March 24, 2016

Seattle Archdiocese Settles Eight Sexual Abuse Cases for $9,150,000

(Mt. Vernon, Bellingham, Seattle) — The Seattle Archdiocese has paid $9,150,000 to settle the claims of eight women who were sexually abused as young girls by parish priest Father Michael Cody. Documentary evidence demonstrates that the Archdiocese knew that Cody was a pedophile and that he was a danger to young people well before the abuse of these women occurred.

Cody sexually abused six of the women while he was assigned to St. Charles Parish in Burlington, Washington from 1968 to 1972, and the other two while he was assigned to Assumption Parish in Bellingham, Washington from 1972 to 1975.

During a trial last year of Jeri Hubbard, who was abused by Cody in Skagit County in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Seattle Archdiocese admitted it acted in an outrageous manner and caused Hubbard serious injuries. In 1962 the then Seattle archbishop had received a letter from a psychiatrist stating that Cody had sexually abused young girls and diagnosing him as a pedophile. Subsequent letters from other priests repeatedly warned the archbishop of Cody’s dangerous propensities. The archbishop then transferred Cody from King to Skagit County where he abused Hubbard. The Archdiocese settled with Hubbard for 1.2 million dollars the day before the jury was scheduled to begin deliberations.

The same legal team that represented Jeri Hubbard also represented the eight women whose cases were just resolved for $9,150,000 – John Murphy of Mt Vernon, Mike Pfau of Seattle and Rand Jack of Bellingham.

Attorney John Murphy, commented: “By bringing these lawsuits, these brave women have helped focus attention on the betrayal by the Archdiocese, as well as by priests. We have barely begun to understand the depth and breadth of the psychological injuries they have suffered and continue to suffer. Hopefully, the resolution of these lawsuits will be part of the healing process.”

Rand Jack of Bellingham added: “I feel privileged to have helped represent these women and to have experienced their courage and determination. They have stood up for themselves and other victims of sexual abuse. Money damages can never compensate them for the harm caused by their parish priest and the betrayal of a powerful institution they revered.”

Seattle attorney Michael T. Pfau, suspects the Archdiocese settled because it does not want the public to hear the full evidence that exists regarding Cody and because the evidence implicating the former Archbishop was so damning. Pfau says: “The evidence regarding Father Cody is overwhelming, and I don’t think the Archdiocese wants more bad publicity. The direct involvement of former Archbishop Thomas Connelly in placing this pedophile in parishes with full knowledge of his danger to children is truly disturbing.”

Pfau also states: “The 1962 record describing Cody’s diagnosis as a pedophile may be one of the earliest remaining record regarding a priest in the Seattle Archdiocese posing a danger to children, at least that I’ve seen in representing abuse survivors.”

Father Cody had previously served at St. Luke Parish in Seattle, Holy Family Parish in Seattle, St. James Cathedral in Seattle, Holy Family Parish in Auburn, and Sacred Heart Parish in La Conner. He was then transferred to St. Charles Parish in Burlington and Assumption Parish in Bellingham, followed by St. Margaret Parish in Seattle.

The plaintiffs are jointly represented by Michael Pfau of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC in Seattle, Washington, John W. Murphy of Mt. Vernon, Washington, and Rand F. Jack of Bellingham, Washington.

In the news

Washington Post (Mar. 24, 2016) – ‘Father Cody is dangerous’: Seattle Archdiocese settles sex abuse case for $9.1 million after damning letters surface

KOMO News (Mar. 23, 2016) – Seattle Archdiocese settles 8 abuse cases for $9 million

Seattle Times (Mar. 23, 2016) – 8 women settle with Seattle Archdiocese for $9.1 million in priest sex-abuse cases

March 15, 2016

iPic Theater Lawsuit over ADA Discrimination Claims

We are investigating a class action lawsuit against iPic Theaters for discriminating against people with disabilities for not providing ADA-accessible seating in their movie theaters, and requiring disabled people to pay more to enjoy the same experience as everyone else. If you, or someone you know has been over-charged by iPic Theaters for wheelchair-accessible seating, please contact us below.

Non-ADA Accessible Movie Theater Seats

Is iPic really the “Ultimate Theater Experience?”

That’s how they bill themselves.  But is it fair to charge more for people who have special equipment required to get around?  The law is that everyone should be able to experience iPic’s theaters and not have to pay extra for handicapped seating.

iPic Theaters around the US

iPic has theaters around the country:

  • iPic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ
  • iPic Westwood, Los Angeles, CA
  • iPic Pasadena, Pasadena, CA
  • iPic Mizner Park, Boca Raton, FL
  • iPic North Miami Beach, North Miami Beach, FL
  • iPic Bolingbrook, Bolingbrook, IL
  • iPic South Barrington, South Barrington, IL
  • iPic Pike & Rose, North Bethesda, MD
  • iPic Austin, Austin, TX
  • iPic Fairview, Fairview, TX
  • iPic Houston, Houston, TX
  • iPic Redmond, Redmond WA
  • iPic Bayshore, Glendale, WI

We are seeking clients from anywhere in the US that have paid more for handicapped seating.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Violated

The Americans with Disabilities Act provides these regulations to allow everyone, regardless of physical ability, to enjoy activities without having to spend extra money. It’s not fair, and we want iPic to stop these practices and try to prevent other movie theaters from behaving the same way.  A class action lawsuit can have this effect.

We want to hear from you

If you’ve been to an iPic theater and had to pay extra for premium seating because there were no wheelchair-accessible seats available, you may have a claim in our class action lawsuit.  We are seeking class representatives, so please contact us as soon as you can.

Contact us today

There is no cost to you to contact us and we only get paid if we win.  Usually, in a class action lawsuit, the attorney’s fees are paid out of a separate fund.  Lawsuits like this are meant to incite change in the policies of corporations that take advantage of people, and when you have a company like iPic making millions of dollars unfairly, a class action suit is an excellent tool to make them change.

February 18, 2016

PRESS RELEASE – PCVA Lawsuit Forces Error 53 Fix

Bricked iPhones may be resurrected by Apple

SEATTLE, WA – Apple released an operating system update today that it claims will fix a catastrophic error that left thousands of customers’ iPhones useless.  This announcement comes one week after PCVA filed a class action lawsuit over this defect, commonly known as “Error 53”.  Apple also announced plans to compensate customers who purchased replacements for their inoperable or “bricked” phones.

“Our lawsuit has accomplished goal number one:  to get Apple to create an immediate solution for people whose phones were bricked by Error 53,” said Darrell Cochran, PCVA’s lead attorney for the class action suit.  “We’re going to make sure that Apple follows through with its promises, but we appreciate that the company says it’s going to solve this problem and compensate its customers who were victimized by it.  That’s good business.”

Cochran said the details have not been released yet about compensation for customers who spent money trying to get a working iPhone because of this error.  “It will be important to see whether Apple acknowledges how badly this defect harmed people,” Cochran said.

Cochran added that he wants to make sure that Apple recognizes that people stored important information on their phones only to have it all erased.  “With all the customers we think were impacted, reimbursement is a critical component to whether a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.”

Contact us if you have experienced Error 53

WP-Backgrounds Lite by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann 1010 Wien