Opperman v. Path, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67225
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- CAC consolidates 15 plaintiffs across four related actions against 15 defendants; Apple runs the App Store, controls iDevices’ access to apps, and disputes with App Defendants over data privacy.
- Plaintiffs allege subject apps copied address books without consent, uploading data to third parties.
- Plaintiffs seek remedies under UCL, FAL, CLRA, CDAFA, CFAA, ECPA, and RICO, plus common-law claims (negligent misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, conversion, trespass, misappropriation, strict products liability, negligence).
- Plaintiffs claim Apple’s representations of safety/privacy and App Store processes facilitated data theft; several related apps allegedly accessed contact data without consent.
- There are additional claims against Gowalla and Facebook, including UFTA and successor liability theories, and requests for injunctive and monetary relief; Court grants/denies in part and allows amendment.
- The court distinguishes Article III standing from merits, noting standing issues must be resolved before addressing substantive claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Plaintiffs’ claims | Plaintiffs allege injury-in-fact via overpayment and statutory rights. | Apple contends lack of injury or causation. | Plaintiffs have standing at pleading stage; some injuries dismissed later as to specific claims. |
| CDA and publisher vs. content provider | Plaintiffs’ theories rely on Apple’s role in enabling Apps to access data. | CDA immunity shields Apple when not acting as content provider. | CDA may bar some claims; issues remain for whether Apple is an information content provider. |
| Misrepresentation claims sufficiency | Plaintiffs rely on long advertising campaigns and some specific representations. | Need particularized reliance and specific misrepresentations under Rule 9(b). | Dismissal granted for misrepresentation claims due to lack of specific reliance and detailed advertising allegations; leave to amend. |
| CDAFA/CFAA/ECPA viability | Apps copied address books without permission. | Claims fail under “without permission” and interception theories. | Claims under CDAFA, CFAA, and ECPA dismissed; evidence insufficient to show circumvention or contemporaneous interception. |
| UFTA and successor liability against Facebook/Gowalla | Facebook/Gowalla transfer assets and owe liabilities. | No transfer of assets or valid successor liability. | UFTA and successor liability claims dismissed; no asset transfer alleged; aiding/abetting also dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (heightened pleading standard for lack of plausible claims)
- Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) (reliance may be inferred for lengthy advertising campaigns)
- Whiteley v. Philip Morris Inc., 117 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. 2004) (public advertising reliance without identifying each misrepresentation)
- Roommates.Com, LLC v. Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (development/content provider distinction under CDA)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (interception/holistic view of electronic communications)
- Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2004) (Defining interception under ECPA)