Pirozzi v. Apple Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180530
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Pirozzi sues Apple for allowing third-party Apps in the App Store to upload user data without permission in violation of privacy promises.
- Plaintiff asserts six claims: UCL, FAL, CLRA, Negligent Misrepresentation, Negligence, and Unjust Enrichment.
- Apple moves to dismiss under CDA § 230, Rule 12(b)(1) standing, Rule 9(b) pleading, and failure to state claims.
- Court grants Motion to Dismiss With Leave to Amend, finding lack of Article III standing for all claims.
- Court reasons plaintiff must show concrete injury from misrepresentation and actual data misappropriation; mere risk or future harm is insufficient.
- The Court also finds Counts I–IV rely on fraud-level pleading and require Rule 9(b) specificity; other counts are dismissed with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Article III | Pirozzi suffered injury via overpayment or misappropriation of data. | Plaintiff lacks concrete injury and causation from alleged misrepresentations and data collection. | Plaintiff lacks standing; all claims dismissed with leave to amend. |
| CDA § 230 immunity | Apple’s CDA defense cannot shield it from misrepresentation claims tied to its own content. | Apple is immune when acting as publisher/editor of third-party content. | Not decided on the merits; insufficient record to grant immunity; CDA determination reserved. |
| Fraud claims under Rule 9(b) (Counts I–IV) | Allegations of misrepresentations on App Store and policies support UCL/FAL/CLRA/Negligent Misrepresentation. | Fails to plead who/what/when/how reliance occurred with specific material representations. | Counts I–IV dismissed with leave to amend for lack of particularity. |
| CLRA claim viability (Count III) | Purchases of Apple Devices/Apps involved deceptive acts in sale of goods/services. | Plaintiff not a consumer or not alleging sale of goods/services; reliance on App Store use mischaracterized. | CLRA claim dismissed with leave to amend; plaintiff may reframe allegations in a goods transaction. |
| Negligence and Unjust Enrichment viability (Counts V–VI) | Apple owed duty to protect personal information; misappropriation caused harm. | No duty to protect third-party misappropriation and data collection as a third-party risk. | Negligence and Unjust Enrichment dismissed with leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) (cda immunity depends on information content provider status)
- Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (immunity if not publisher of information created by another)
- Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 628 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing requires actual injury from data collection)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (fraud pleading requires who, what, when, where, how)
- Vess v. Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading requirements for fraud)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976) (duty principles in tort law (contextual for duty discussion))