In re Iphone Application Litigation
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169220
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs sue Apple on behalf of themselves and putative classes for CLRA and UCL violations related to iPhone data collection and privacy practices.
- They allege two claim groups: iDevice Claims (privacy in App Store ecosystem) and Geolocation Claims (location data collection even when Location Services were off).
- Plaintiffs allege Apple misrepresented privacy protections and data collection in Privacy Policy, iOS SLAs, and App Store terms, causing overpayment and resource drain.
- Apple moves for summary judgment arguing lack of Article III standing and lack of CLRA/UCL standing due to absence of actual reliance.
- Court previously found standing deficiencies; after renewed discovery, Apple renewed its summary judgment motion.
- Court grants summary judgment, holding plaintiffs lack Article III and CLRA/UCL standing because no evidence shows they read/reliant on alleged misrepresentations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing | Plaintiffs claim injury in fact and causation from misrepresentations. | Apple shows no evidence of actual reliance or injury causation. | Plaintiff lacks standing; summary judgment for Apple. |
| Whether CLRA/UCL standing requires actual reliance | Reliance on misrepresentations required; they relied or would have relied. | No actual reliance shown; no concrete injury linked to misrepresentation. | Actual reliance required; plaintiffs fail to show reliance; CLRA/UCL standing absent. |
| Whether alleged misrepresentations were actually seen/reliied upon by plaintiffs | Plaintiffs allege read/read updated Privacy Policy and Terms. | No Plaintiff demonstrated sight or reliance on misrepresentations. | No evidence of actual reading/reliance; no standing. |
| Whether theories (like iTunes account/Privacy Policy exposure) can salvage standing | iTunes account terms may suffice to show exposure and reliance. | No Plaintiff identified specific misrepresentation read or relied upon. | Theory insufficient; standing not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (U.S. 2010) (standing requires injury, traceability, redressability at summary judgment)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing elements; burden to prove injury, causation, redressability)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (actual reliance required for UCL fraud/unlawful/unfair prongs when based on misrepresentation)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (applies actual reliance to misrepresentation-based UCL claims; materiality and reliance required)
- Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal.App. 2010) (standing under CLRA/UCL requires actual reliance and injury outcome)
- Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.4th 622 (Cal.App. 2010) (need for actual reliance in misrepresentation-based claims)