Court gives green light to class action over computer processor structure

Core v. Module

In the end, as it so often does, the case comes down to semantics.

A consumer class action launched in 2015 alleges that Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) misrepresented the number of core processors in its line of "Bulldozer" CPUs.

First, a quick and dirty definition: A core processor is an independent processing unit within a computer's CPU. Each core processor can independently execute user commands; the expectation is that several independent processors splitting commands between them will execute all of them faster than a single processor would.

The case, filed in California's Northern District, alleges that AMD plays fast and loose with its definition of "core." AMD, the original suit claims, "built the Bulldozer processors by stripping away components from two cores and combining what was left to make a single 'module.' But by removing certain components of two cores to make one module, they no longer work independently."

We can't claim to understand the interactions between two former cores that are smashed together into a new module, but let's just say the plaintiffs allege that these cores share enough internal plumbing that they are not as effective as truly independent cores.

The plaintiffs allege violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law as well as fraud in the inducement, breach of express warranty and negligent misrepresentation – the slate that survived after two amended complaints hammered out between 2016 and 2018.

The Takeaway

AMD moved to oppose class certification in April 2018. The company argued that the plaintiffs failed to meet the commonality requirement for class certification. "The evidence is overwhelming that there is no specific, uniform expectation of what components a 'core' must provide, and most consumers surveyed understood core in a way that is entirely consistent with AMD's chips," AMD maintained.

The Northern District rejected AMD's argument, holding that "[t]he central question raised is whether a reasonable consumer would have been deceived by the term 'core' as used in Defendant's advertising. Whether or not Plaintiffs prevail on the merits of their challenge, the answer to that question is common to all class members."

And so, this action moves forward to trial. The situation for AMD is a difficult one: settle and rejigger its "core" definition or go to trial and let a jury determine how its technology will need to be marketed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.