Class-action suit filed against Microsoft over Surface RT

A class-action suit over Microsoft's statements regarding Surface RT sales has been filed in Massachusetts.
Written by Mary Jo Foley, Senior Contributing Editor

The law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd has filed a class-action suit against Microsoft over what it claims was misleading information on the company's Surface RT sales.

Neowin.net posted about the suit on August 13, noting that it names as defendants Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, former Chief Financial Officer Peter Klein, Corporate Vice President Frank Brod and Executive Vice President of Marketing Tami Reller.

The case was filed in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Microsoft stock between April 18, 2013 and July 18, 2013 (the “Class Period”). The firm is seeking a lead plaintiff for the case. A PDF copy of the complaint is here.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd has been busy filing similar types of class-action suits, as a quick check on its Web site makes clear. (Or, as the August 12 press release more delicately puts it: "Robbins Geller ... has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.")

The firm is claiming that Microsoft "issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and its tablet computer, the Surface RT." It is claiming that the company's financial statements for the quarter ending March 31, 2-13 were "materially false and misleading" and that Microsoft officials made misleading positive statements about the Surface RT during the "class period."

Microsoft announced a $900 million Surface RT write-down as part of its Q4 2013 earnings report. Despite that fact, the company is continuing to push ahead with its ARM-based Surface RT platform and is expected to make available new Surface RT accessories and a new Surface RT "release" some time between now and June 30, 2014. 

A Microsoft spokesperson said the company had no comment on the class-action suit.

Editorial standards