Intel Corporation faces legal scrutiny after Mark Vanvalkenburgh filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging that the semiconductor giant misled customers about faulty 13th and 14th-generation processors.
Mark claims that Intel marketed these products as highly reliable and high-performance while allegedly concealing widespread stability issues. Intel used words like “the world’s fastest desktop processor” capable of delivering an “amazing” gaming and multitasking experience while selling the 13th generation Raptor Lake processors.
According to Vanvalkenburgh, he and potentially millions of other consumers bought these CPUs expecting stability and high performance, only to be plagued by unexpected crashes, screen blackouts, and frequent computer restarts.
Despite knowing about the defects, Intel is accused of continuing to tout these processors as premium products. The lawsuit points out that Intel had exclusive knowledge of these issues and yet chose to launch the product to maintain demand and protect its reputation as an industry leader, thus spiking sales while leaving users with underperforming and unreliable products.
The defects occurred due to an increased operating voltage caused by a faulty microcode algorithm that resulted in incorrect voltage requests to the processor.
Intel has assured us that the microcode patch will be distributed through BIOS updates from motherboard manufacturers and Windows updates. Although the microcode will not replace any existing damage, Intel continues to replace the processor.
If certified as a class action, the lawsuit could lead to Intel paying substantial damages, potentially amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Vanvalkenburgh is seeking restitution for customers who paid premium prices for Intel’s allegedly defective CPUs and sustained what his legal team describes as “economic injury.”
Beyond the damages, the lawsuit demands an injunction to prevent Intel from misleading customers in the future, reports ArsTechnica. Vanvalkenburgh’s complaint also seeks punitive damages, arguing that Intel’s “fraudulent concealment” was intentional and designed to maximise profits at the expense of consumer trust.
The plaintiff’s case builds on a perception that Intel prioritised sales over consumer transparency, a move he contends constitutes “unfair and deceptive practices.”
In the News: Automattic launches site to track WP Engine customer exit
