I read the complaint.
To begin with, I suspect that the lawsuit is fraudulent. According to the complaint, the plaintiff is an individual named Tony Dickey who purchased two FX-9590 CPU's from Newegg. The fact that he ordered two at once, and successfully installed these CPU's (which require a liquid cooling system) suggest a certain level of computer knowledge. Never the less, he was not aware that the processors used a CMT design. Prior to purchasing this product, he went to the AMD web site and read that it had 8 cores, but overlooked the text that advertised the "Shared FP Scheduler: Dual 128-bit Floating point engines – capable of teaming together for 256-bit AVX instructions or operating separately with each core." He chose the $300 AMD processor over an unspecified Intel 6-core processor (presumably the i7-4930K at around $570), but would not have purchased the AMD processors if he had known they used CMT. Although he is unhappy enough with AMD to sue AMD, he would consider purchasing AMD products in the future.
While I don't have any direct evidence that Tony Dickey is a liar, the story he tells strikes me as too improbable to be believable.
The complaint seeks to convert the lawsuit to a class action on behalf of, "All individuals in the United States that purchased any of the following AMD Bulldozer processors: FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590." The majority of these are actually Piledriver rather than Bulldozer, but whatever. In any case, the class action only extends to people who have the expertise and desire to install their own CPU's, not to people who buy complete computers.
The justification for converting the lawsuit to a class action comes down to the claim that people who build their own computers are stupid. The complaint asserts, without evidence, that "Average consumers in the market for a CPU lack the requisite technical expertise to understand the underlying design of the Bulldozer processors."
In their complaint, the lawyers cite Bulldozer reviews on Tom's Hardware and Anandtech which explain CMT. Why, you may ask, did these reviewers bother to explain CMT if their readers are too stupid to understand it? The lawyers claim that the sites that explain CMT are "technical trade publications (i.e., publications not read by average consumers)." Remember that, in this context, "average consumers" refers to people who buy CPU's as separate products, not in prebuilt systems.
The "About AnandTech" page on this site states that, "AnandTech serves the needs of readers looking for reviews on PC components, smartphones, tablets, pre-built desktops, notebooks, Macs and enterprise/cloud computing technologies. We are the largest independent technology website doing all of this with over 12 million unique readers per month." It is hard to see how the claim that Anandtech isn't targeted at consumers can be anything other than a bald-faced lie.