Two New York residents, one from New Hampshire, and a fourth plaintiff from California must go back to the drawing board regarding their case against Apple and its allegedly defective devices, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. The plaintiffs said they overpaid for the devices including iPhones, iPads, Apple TVs which allegedly suffered a design defect that allowed unauthorized third parties to access sensitive user data.
This week’s opinion explained that in 2017, independent researchers discovered two vulnerabilities that impacted Apple and possibly other manufacturers’ computer processors units or CPUs. The plaintiffs pointed out that a news source leaked the information before Apple came public with it and that when Apple did finally make a series of announcements, the iDevices declined in value.
Previously, the court twice dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed. In this week’s opinion, Judge Edward A. Davila considered Apple’s arguments that they inadequately pleaded their state law misrepresentation, omission, restitution, and injunctive relief claims.
The court dismissed the fraud-based claims for failure to allege an affirmative misrepresentation, an actionable omission, and actual reliance. With respect to privacy and security representations, the plaintiffs claimed that Apple advertised iPhones as “secure” and built “with your privacy in mind,” which was purportedly misleading in view of the devices’ two vulnerabilities. Judge Davila opined however, that “these representations do not speak to any specific or absolute characteristics about the iPhones’ security and are the type of statements that many courts have held to be non-actionable puffery.”
Similarly the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ fraud by omission claims for failure to allege facts showing that the defects were central to the iDevices’ function. The opinion said that there was no reliance because the plaintiffs did not establish with particularity that they actually relied on Apple’s marketing campaign when they bought the iDevices.
Even subject to a lesser standard, the plaintiffs’ California Unfair Competition Law claims failed because they did not allege facts supporting claims under any of the three prongs.
The plaintiffs have leave to amend all claims until June 30.
The plaintiffs are represented by Berman Tabacco and Lowey Dannenberg P.C. Apple is represented by Latham & Watkins LLP.
