Alan Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.
469 F. App'x 605
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Vitt sues Apple on behalf of California iBook G4 purchasers alleging California consumer protection violations.
- Vitt claims the iBook G4 contains a solder- joint defect on the logic board that causes failure shortly after the one-year warranty expires.
- Plaintiff asserts Apple affirmatively misrepresents durability and quality and fails to disclose the alleged defect.
- The district court dismissed Vitt's second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), deeming Apple’s statements puffery and finding no duty to disclose.
- The Ninth Circuit Affirms, holding the challenged statements are non-actionable puffery and there is no disclosure duty absent other controlling facts.
- The court distinguishes Collins v. eMachines and concludes Collins is not applicable to extend Apple’s warranty or create a disclosure duty here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apple's statements violate Cal. consumer protection laws | Vitt argues statements are specific, factual claims about durability. | Apple contends statements are vague puffery not actionable. | Statements are puffery; no liability. |
| Whether Apple had a duty to disclose the alleged defect | Vitt asserts exclusive knowledge and concealment of defect violates law. | Apple had no duty absent actionable misrepresentation or safety risk. | No disclosure duty; Collins not applicable. |
| Whether the alleged defect extends beyond warranty period | Vitt seeks extension of implied warranty via consumer protection theory. | Defect does not create extended warranty; ordinary consumer expectation limited to warranty. | No extension; warranty period does not create long-term life guarantee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. eMachines, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (exclusive knowledge and concealment can create liability; distinguishable from wear-out defects)
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (no duty to disclose absent affirmative misrepresentation or safety risk)
- Coastal Abstract Serv. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 173 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999) (statements must be specific and measurable to be actionable under UCL/FAL)
- Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9 (Cal. 1965) (consumer risk of nonconformity unless manufacturer guarantees it)
- Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 544 F. Supp. 2d 964 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (persuasive authority regarding post-warranty defects and duty to disclose)
- Long v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 06-02816, 2007 WL 2994812 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (HP fulfilled warranty expectations; no extended life claim)