Lopez v. Apple, Inc., 4:19-cv-04577

Background:

Plaintiffs (Lopez, Henry, Harms) sued Apple on behalf of a putative class, alleging Siri (preinstalled on Apple devices) sometimes activates accidentally and that some Siri recordings are reviewed by third‑party contractors.
Claims pleaded: Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act (SCA), California Penal Code §§ 631(a) and 632(a) (CIPA), intrusion upon seclusion, California constitutional privacy, breach of contract, UCL, and declaratory relief.
Plaintiffs’ allegations principally rely on a July 2019 Guardian article describing accidental Siri triggers (noting higher rates for Apple Watch and HomePod) and that a small portion of recordings are sent to contractors, sometimes revealing private content.
Apple moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), challenging Article III standing and the sufficiency of all statutory and common‑law claims.
The court found Plaintiffs’ injury allegations speculative (reliant on the Guardian article and not tied to plaintiffs’ own devices or private uses) and dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing.
The court also resolved merits issues: it dismissed Wiretap, SCA, CIPA, state common‑law and constitutional privacy, breach of contract, UCL (in part), and declaratory claims—mostly without prejudice and with leave to amend in some respects.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing	Plaintiffs assert concrete privacy and economic injuries from Siri interceptions and loss of benefit of the bargain.	Apple argues injuries are speculative; complaints rely on third‑party reporting and do not allege plaintiffs’ own communications were intercepted or disclosed.	Dismissed for lack of Article III standing (injuries too speculative); complaint dismissed.
Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	Siri intercepted and disclosed oral communications to contractors without consent; Apple intentionally allowed/used accidental activations.	Apple argues no interception of plaintiffs’ communications, no intent (activations accidental), and implied consent via disclosures.	Court: Plaintiffs adequately pleaded intentionality at pleading stage but failed to allege interception/disclosure of their own confidential communications; Wiretap claims dismissed with leave to amend.
SCA (18 U.S.C. §§ 2701, 2702)	Apple unlawfully accessed/stored and disclosed plaintiffs’ electronic communications collected via Siri.	Apple: Siri/software is not a covered ‘‘facility’’ or ‘‘electronic communication service’’; conduct authorized; no disclosure of plaintiffs’ own communications.	Section 2701(a)(1) and 2702(a)(1) claims dismissed—Siri not a covered centralized service/facility and plaintiffs did not allege disclosure of their own communications.
CIPA § 631(a)	Plaintiffs claim § 631(a) prohibits Siri interceptions of oral communications.	Apple argues § 631(a) applies to wire/transmitted communications, not purely oral ones.	Court: § 631(a) does not protect oral communications under likely state‑law interpretation; claim dismissed.
CIPA § 632(a)	Siri recordings eavesdropped using a device without all‑party consent.	Apple argues no device use or intent or that communications were not confidential.	§ 632(a) claim dismissed for failure to allege plaintiffs’ own confidential communications; use and intent adequately pleaded.
California common‑law intrusion & constitutional privacy	Siri interception is a serious, offensive intrusion into privacy interests (information/autonomy privacy).	Apple: Plaintiffs fail to allege a legally cognizable privacy interest or that their own confidential communications were intercepted.	Dismissed: plaintiffs did not plead a cognizable privacy interest tied to their own communications.
Breach of contract (privacy policy/SLA)	Apple’s privacy statements and Siri disclosures created contractual promises not to record/share without permission.	Apple: statements are nonbinding policy or disclaimed by error/third‑party provisions; plaintiffs fail to allege their own disclosures.	Dismissed: representations could be contractual in context, but plaintiffs failed to allege interception/disclosure in their particular circumstances.
UCL (unlawful/unfair/fraudulent)	Apple’s practices are unlawful and unfair; plaintiffs lost money/property by overpaying for devices.	Apple: plaintiffs lack standing (no monetary loss alleged), and no predicate unlawful act shown; unfair prong unsupported.	UCL dismissed for lack of standing and lack of predicate unlawful violation; unfair prong adequately pleaded (left intact).

Key Cases Cited

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish standing)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requiring factual content to state plausible claim)
Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) (standing requires personal, particularized injury)
In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation, 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) (privacy violation can confer standing; limits of SCA)
Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp., 147 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (dismissing claims lacking impact on named plaintiffs)
Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, 457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (pleading intentional interception where defendant aware of defect but took no remedial action)
Christensen v. United States, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015) (intent requirement under Wiretap Act: purposeful, deliberate conduct)
Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th 766 (2002) (CIPA legislative purpose and interpretation)
Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) (elements for constitutional privacy claim)
Ribas v. Clark, 38 Cal. 3d 355 (1985) (structure and scope of CIPA)