In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.
347 F. Supp. 3d 434
| N.D. Cal. | 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (122 consumers worldwide) allege Apple released iOS updates (notably iOS 10.2.1 and 11.2) that implemented power‑management throttling which substantially slowed certain iPhone models and that Apple failed to disclose this effect.
- Consumers reported unexpected shutdowns beginning in 2015–2016; Apple stated updates improved power management to avoid shutdowns and later confirmed throttling to prevent shutdowns.
- Plaintiffs assert a broader design defect theory: a mismatch between ever‑improving iOS demands and lithium‑ion battery capacity in older devices.
- This MDL consolidated many class actions; the court limited Apple’s Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to six claims: CFAA, CLRA, UCL, FAL, CDAFA, and trespass to chattels, and to threshold issues about non‑U.S. plaintiffs and inclusion of iPads.
- The court evaluated: (a) whether non‑U.S. plaintiffs can pursue California law claims; (b) CFAA/CDAFA/trespass claims based on updates; and (c) California consumer‑protection claims based on affirmative misrepresentations and omissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May non‑U.S. plaintiffs proceed under California law? | Software License choice‑of‑law (California) governs worldwide users; thus California law applies. | Choice‑of‑law inapplicable; extraterritorial/ practical problems; some claims (FAL) geographically limited. | Court: choice‑of‑law clause covers claims; non‑U.S. plaintiffs may invoke California law except FAL (dismissed as to non‑U.S. plaintiffs with leave to amend). |
| Do non‑U.S. plaintiffs’ CFAA claims survive extraterritoriality challenge? | CFAA applies because protected‑computer definition includes computers outside the U.S. that affect U.S. commerce. | CFAA should not apply extraterritorially. | Court: CFAA text permits extraterritorial application here; claims may proceed. |
| Do CFAA/CDAFA/trespass claims survive for alleged throttling via iOS updates? | Plaintiffs: updates intentionally caused damage/impairment without authorization; thus CFAA §1030(a)(5) (A) & (C), CDAFA, and trespass claims valid. | Apple: users voluntarily installed updates, so access was authorized; economic‑loss rule bars claims; some device models not affected. | Court: CFAA §1030(a)(5)(A) survives; §1030(a)(5)(C) dismissed with leave to amend (consent issue). CDAFA and trespass to chattels claims survive (except as to iPhone 5 / certain iPads where feature not alleged). Economic‑loss rule not applied. |
| Do CLRA / UCL / FAL consumer‑protection claims (affirmative misrep and omissions) survive? | Plaintiffs: Apple made affirmative performance claims and concealed defects/ battery limitations; omissions were material and central to device function. | Apple: misstatements were puffery or non‑specific; Plaintiffs lacked particularized exposure/reliance and did not plead a duty to disclose; safety‑hazard standard not met. | Court: Affirmative‑misrepresentation claims dismissed with leave to amend for failure to plead particularized exposure; omission‑based claims dismissed with leave to amend (Plaintiffs failed to plead materiality, exclusivity of knowledge, or other duty exceptions). UCL unlawful prong survives to the extent it rests on CDAFA claim (except iPhone 5 / certain iPads). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459 (1992) (broad choice‑of‑law clause governs all claims arising from the agreement)
- Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation Int'l Ltd., 323 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2003) (limits on contracting around geographic scope of state law)
- Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2018) (duty‑to‑disclose principles in consumer‑protection context)
- United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016) ("without authorization" means without permission in CFAA context)
- Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (2003) (digital trespass principles; no tort absent impairment of system functioning)
- Cel‑Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) (UCL unlawful prong analyzes violations of independent statutes)
- Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949) (presumption against extraterritoriality of federal statutes)
- WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) (two‑step framework for extraterritoriality analysis)