Backhaut v. Apple, Inc.
74 F. Supp. 3d 1033
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege Apple intercepts, stores, and prevents delivery of text messages from current iPhone/iMessage users to former Apple device users in violation of the SCA and Wiretap Act, plus UCL and CLRA claims.
- Plaintiffs purchased iPhones (Backhaut in 2012, Morris in 2012) and used iMessage/Messages; two later switched to non-Apple devices but continued to receive blocked messages.
- Plaintiffs allege iMessage routing and message categorization (iMessage vs SMS/MMS) causes nondelivery to former users.
- Plaintiffs contend Apple knowingly intercepts and stores messages via a device under the Wiretap Act, and that Apple’s conduct is unlawful under UCL/CLRA.
- Defendant moves to dismiss on multiple grounds, including lack of SCA/Wiretap viability, standing, consent, and good faith defense; court grants in part and denies in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCA claim is viable | Plaintiffs allege Apple accessed a third-party facility to obtain messages in storage. | Apple argues no facility in storage and no stored messages were accessed. | SCA claim dismissed with leave to amend. |
| Whether Wiretap Act claim is viable | Apple intercepted messages to former iMessage users, violating Wiretap Act. | Interception alleged but may be ordinary course or consented. | Wiretap Act claim survives dismissal with consent and good faith defenses addressed. |
| Standing under CLRA/UCL | Plaintiffs suffered injury and reliance on misrepresentation/omission. | Plaintiffs failed to show actual reliance and injury from misrepresentations. | CLRA/UCL claims based on fraud dismissed for lack of reliance; remaining unlawful/unfair claims discussed. |
| Unlawful UCL claim based on Wiretap Act | Wiretap violation supports unlawful UCL claim. | Predicates insufficient if SCA/Wiretap claims fail. | Unlawful UCL claim predicated on Wiretap Act can proceed; SCA-based unlawful claim dismissed. |
| Unfair UCL claim based on SCA/Wiretap/fraud | Interference harms consumers and violates privacy public policy; alleged fraud supports unfairness. | Fails Rule 9(b) and reliance requirements; balance not satisfied. | Unfair UCL claim based on fraud dismissed; unfair claim predicated on Wiretap Act survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (SCA/Wiretap distinctions; storage vs contemporaneous interception)
- In re Pharmatrak, Inc. Privacy Litig., 329 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (intent required; interception standards; reliance considerations)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 (Cal. 2011) (actual reliance required for UCL fraud/misrepresentation claims)
- Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal.App. 2010) (standing and reliance in CLRA/UCL fraud claims)
- Collins v. eMachines, Inc., 202 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal.App. 2011) (duty to disclose; omitted-factor considerations)
- Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999) (unlawful prong of UCL borrows other laws)
- Fireside Bank v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 1069 (Cal. 2007) (unfairness standards under UCL; tethering/balancing context)