O.C. Suits Pressure Computer Makers on Screen-Size Ads

Acting on consumer complaints, officials in the state attorney general’s office say they are nearing an agreement with computer makers to eliminate advertising practices that allegedly confuse consumers about the size of computer screens.

The issue has drawn scrutiny from prosecutors and consumer advocates in Orange County and elsewhere in the state.

The controversy centers on the discrepancy that often exists between the stated size of a computer monitor and the actual viewing area. Because a narrow band around the sides of the monitor screen generally carries no picture, what is advertised as, say, a 17-inch monitor often has a viewing area closer to 15 inches.

Last week, pressure on computer manufacturers intensified as computer buyers filed two lawsuits in Orange County alleging that Irvine-based AST Research, Compaq, Packard Bell and numerous other manufacturers have consistently advertised screen measurements that inflate the size by as much as 33%.

In March, the Merced County district attorney sued a number of computer vendors for allegedly deceptive advertising.

The two Orange County suits seek unspecified damages, as well as class-action status. Conceivably, that could mean nearly every computer owner in California would have a stake in the outcome of the suits, attorneys said.

AST and several other computer manufacturers declined to comment on the suits.

*

One of the suits was filed Aug. 23 by Randy Davis, a psychologist based in Huntington Beach. Davis bought what had been advertised as a 14-inch computer monitor in November, 1993. But when he got it home, the suit alleges, Davis measured the screen and found that the usable portion was only about 12.6 inches, measured diagonally.

Davis was not available for comment, but his attorney, Louis Marlin, said the suit centers on a basic issue of fairness. “If consumers . . . are getting 25% or 30% less product than they paid for, they have been misled, and they’re entitled to compensation for that,” Marlin said.

Fair compensation could be as much as $400 for every screen purchased, said Marlin, who added he also would seek punitive damages against computer makers.

The other suit was filed Aug. 21 by a group of plaintiffs that includes two Orange County companies: Anaheim Marketing International and Irvine-based Prestige Accommodations International.

Computer manufacturers commonly list sizes of glass screens based on measurements taken before monitors are assembled, the suits contend. That means advertised measurements include portions of the screen that are hidden behind a plastic cabinet, plus a thin border on the screen that is visible, but carries no picture.

Bowing to consumer complaints, some computer makers have already begun providing two measurements for monitors. IBM, for example, places stickers on its machines explaining that 20-inch monitors actually have 18.4 inches of viewable area. But so far, only a handful of manufacturers have taken similar steps, according to attorneys and industry sources.

Retailers say they are familiar with the way manufacturers measure screens, but they say many consumers are not.

“It’s pretty confusing to a lot of people,” said the manager at one Orange County CompUSA store. “There are complaints that come back about the size of the monitors.”

*

The practice appears to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of a 1966 Federal Trade Commission rule aimed at the television industry. That rule requires the advertised size of television screens to refer only to the actual viewable picture area.

Michael Bloom, an FTC attorney, said the television rule technically does not apply to computer monitors, but he added that he sympathizes with consumers.

“I think a fair reading of the television rule is that if you’re marketing a display device . . . you tell consumers what the usable size is,” he said. “If I were buying a computer, I would want to know the actual usable area of the monitor.”

Bloom said the FTC has looked into the matter, but he declined to say whether the agency is planning to take action.

Meanwhile, officials in the California attorney general’s office say they are close to striking an agreement under which computer manufacturers would use measurements that are more meaningful to consumers.

“In the case of computer monitors, there are no hard and fast guidelines,” said Steve Telliano, a spokesman for Atty Gen. Dan Lundgren. “We looked at the situation and decided there was a real need to clear up this mess.”

Attorneys in the Orange County cases say they are aware of the attorney general’s efforts, but that the state is unlikely to seek compensation for consumers. “The plaintiffs are entitled to damages,” said Stephen White, a Sacramento attorney representing several Orange County companies in the suit filed Aug. 21.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Screen Shrinkage

Computer monitor screen size is measured diagonally, typically before the screen is assembled. But portions of the screen are hidden after the screen is installed in a plastic cabinet. The display area is further reduced because of an unusable border. Discrepancies between advertised size and usable size vary among monitors. Here’s how the reduction happens:

Original cathode ray tube Size: 14 inches

Exposed screen after plastic casing Size: 13.2 inches

Usable screen Size: 13 inches

Source: Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard; Researched by JANICE L. JONES / Los Angeles Times