Moore v. Apple, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158900
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Adrienne Moore bought an iPhone in March 2011, later upgraded to iOS 5 (which introduced Apple’s Messages/iMessage service), and in April 2014 switched to a non-Apple phone (Samsung). After the switch she stopped receiving numerous texts from Apple-device users.
- Moore alleges Apple failed to disclose that Messages could route messages via Apple’s network and would not deliver texts to users who left Apple devices, causing undelivered messages and depriving her of the texting service she paid for under her Verizon contract.
- She brings claims for tortious interference with contract, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (unlawful, unfair, fraudulent prongs), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); she seeks class treatment.
- Apple moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing/injury, failure to plead reliance under CLRA/UCL (fraud-based claims) because Moore purchased the iPhone before iOS 5 existed, Rule 9(b) problems, and insufficiency of the tortious-interference claim.
- The court took judicial notice of Apple’s iOS 4 and iOS 5 license agreements and ruled: CLRA and the UCL fraud-based claims (predicated on CLRA) dismissed with prejudice; UCL unlawful claim based on tortious interference and tortious-interference claim survived; UCL unfair claim dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (injury-in-fact) | Moore says she suffered concrete injury: lost receipt of texts she paid for under Verizon contract. | Apple contends no cognizable injury pleaded. | Moore has alleged sufficient injury-in-fact to survive dismissal. |
| CLRA and UCL (fraud/actual reliance) | Moore claims Apple omitted material facts about Messages and she would not have purchased the iPhone had she known. | Apple argues Moore bought the iPhone before iOS 5/Message existed, so she could not have relied at time of sale; CLRA/UCL require actual reliance on pre-sale misrepresentations. | Dismissed with prejudice: Moore cannot plead actual reliance because alleged misrepresentations post-dated her purchase. |
| Tortious interference with contract | Moore alleges Apple knew users had contracts to send/receive texts and knowingly caused disruption by routing via Messages, resulting in undelivered messages. | Apple argues plaintiff failed to identify specific contract term or show specific breach and that Apple lacked intent to disrupt carriers’ services. | Claim survives: allegations sufficiently plead contract, Apple’s knowledge, intentional acts substantially certain to interfere, disruption, and damages. |
| UCL unlawful vs unfair prongs | Moore predicates unlawful claim on CLRA and tortious interference; unfair claim alleges harm to competition. | Apple argues CLRA-based UCL fails for same reasons; unfair prong is inadequately pled. | UCL unlawful claim survives as supported by tortious interference; UCL claim predicated on CLRA and unfair-prong claim dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards and legal conclusions)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (injury-in-fact at pleading stage)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing burden and elements)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (actual reliance requirement for UCL/CLRA fraud-based claims)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011) (discussion of reliance in UCL context)
- Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) (scope of UCL)
- Piping Rock Partners, Inc. v. David Lerner Assocs., Inc., 946 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (elements of tortious interference claim)
- Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010) (standing/redressability principles)