In re iPhone Application Litig.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81426
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Putative nationwide class action against Apple and Mobile Industry Defendants alleging privacy violations from iDevice apps collecting user data without consent.
- Plaintiffs base claims on two classes: the iDevice Class (apps on iOS devices) and the Geolocation Class (location data collection after iOS 4).
- Court previously dismissed for lack of standing; amended complaint adds specific injuries and statutory rights theories.
- Alleged harms include consumption of iDevice resources, exposure to data security risks, and overpayment for devices due to undisclosed data practices.
- Plaintiffs contend Apple and Tracking Defendants violated SCA, Wiretap Act, California privacy rights, CFAA, trespass, CLRA, and UCL; Apple’s defenses include consumer privacy commitments and contractual waivers.
- Case was centralized in MDL proceedings in the Northern District of California; hearing held May 3, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Article III | Plaintiffs show concrete, particularized injuries and statutory rights injuries. | Plaintiffs fail to show injury in fact fairly traceable to defendants. | Standing satisfied; subject-matter jurisdiction exists. |
| SCA claim viability | Geolocation and iDevice data collection violated SCA §2701(a)(1). | iPhone not a facility; data not in electronic storage; exceptions apply. | SCA claims dismissed as to both Apple and Tracking Defendants. |
| Wiretap Act viability | Location data constitutes intercepted content. | Location data not content; Apple as intended recipient not liable. | Wiretap Act claims dismissed. |
| California privacy rights | Geolocation and iDevice data disclosure invades privacy under Art. I, §1. | Not an egregious invasion; disclosure not serious invasion. | Counts 3 and 4 dismissed; privacy claim insufficient. |
| CLRA and UCL viability | Geolocation and iDevice claims show misrepresentation and unfair practices. | CLRA/UCL claims misstate theories or lack damages; some claims fail as a matter of law. | CLRA survives; UCL survives in part (unlawful and fraudulent prongs) and otherwise analyzed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing precedes merits; injury-in-fact required)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1985) (jurisdictional standing question precedes merits)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- In re Facebook Privacy Litigation, 791 F.Supp.2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (statutory rights injuries can establish Article III injury)
- Crowley v. Cyber-Source Corp., 166 F.Supp.2d 1263 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (precludes personal computer as SCA facility; limits interpretation)
- Chance v. Ave. A, Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d 1153 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (facility interpretation under SCA discussed)
- In re DoubleClick Privacy Litigation, 154 F.Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (cookies not in electronic storage; SCA limitations)
- In re Toys R Us Privacy Litigation, 2001 WL 34517252 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (privacy claims considered with CFAA context)
- United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) (contents vs. metadata for Wiretap Act)