Catherine Blake, Richterin am Bezirksgericht, hatte im März 2003 die fünf Klagen mit der Begründung abgewiesen, die Forderungen widersprächen der Absicht des Kongresses, einheitliche Sicherheitsstandards für Mobiltelefone festzulegen. Blane Michael, Richter am Appellationsgericht, hob Blake's Entscheidung aus verfahrensrechtlichen Gründen auf. Vier Fälle wurden zurück zu den bundesstaatlichen Gerichten verwiesen, von denen sie ursprünglich kamen. Das fünfte Verfahren ging zu Richterin Blake in Baltimore zurück. Das 4. Bezirksgericht (Circuit Court of Appeals) erklärte in der Berufung, dass bei den Prozessen die bundesstaatliche Rechtsprechung nicht vorrangig sei. In den Verfahren heißt es, die Mobiltelefongesellschaften hätten nicht vor den gesundheitlichen Risiken der Geräte gewarnt.
In der Gruppenklage gegen die gesamte Mobilfunkindustrie wurde gefordert, dass die Mobilfunkgesellschaften jedem Nutzer eine Freisprechanlage zur Verfügung stellen, um die Strahlung zu reduzieren.
USA: Hersteller von Mobiltelefonen vor Gericht
ORIGINAL-TEXT
Cell-phone makers facing lawsuits
Reinstated cases against firms cite health risks
WASHINGTON. A U.S. appeals court yesterday reinstated five lawsuits against Motorola Inc., Nokia and about two dozen other mobile-phone companies over claims that radiation emitted from cell phones poses a health risk.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the suits weren't trumped by federal law and sent four of the cases back to state courts. The suits say that cell-phone companies failed to warn of the risks of diseases such as cancer from use of the devices.
The cases, the first class-action suits brought against the entire cell-phone industry, demanded that the phone companies provide every user with a headset to reduce exposure to low-level radiation. A decision forcing phone makers to provide headsets would be inconsequential because the headsets are inexpensive, said Paul Sagawa, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
"The real key thing is the industry doesn't want every brain-cancer sufferer in the U.S. looking to get $10 million from the cell-phone industry," he said.
The defendants in the case include Motorola, Nokia, VoiceStream Wireless Corp., SBC Communications Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Nextel Communications Inc., Cingular Wireless LLC, Sprint Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. and Ericsson AB.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake threw out the five suits in March 2003, saying the claims conflicted with the intent of Congress to establish uniform cell-phone safety standards. Blake earlier had declined to send four of the five class-action suits back to state courts. The plaintiffs appealed both rulings.
U.S. Appellate Court Judge Blane Michael reversed Blake's rulings on procedural grounds. Four of the cases were sent to the state courts where they originated, and the fifth was sent back to Blake in Baltimore. Judge Jackson Kiser dissented in the appeals court's 2-1 opinion.
Norman Sandler, a spokesman for Schaumburg, Ill.-based Motorola, said the 4th Circuit's ruling didn't address the claims made in the lawsuits.
"The ruling does not go to the merits or lack thereof of the claims," Sandler said. "It is a jurisdictional ruling."
Sagawa said that there's been no scientific study linking cell-phone use with cancer and that any implication of such a link "the industry would fight tooth and nail."
The industry is mainly concerned about court findings that provide "fodder for further civil suits," Sagawa said.
Ken Starr, the former U.S. solicitor general and independent counsel and now dean of Pepperdine University's law school, represented the defendants.
The class-action suits also claim that the cell-phone companies concealed evidence and intentionally failed to warn of health risks.