Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110729
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiff Pirozzi filed a proposed class action against Apple concerning alleged third-party apps accessing user data from Apple devices via the App Store.
- Second Amended Complaint asserts five claims: UCL, FAL, CLRA, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
- Court previously dismissed the First Amended Complaint; Apple moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on multiple grounds.
- The SAC alleges Apple as gatekeeper controlling device and App Store ecology, including statements about security and data protection.
- Plaintiff purchased an iPhone in 2011 relying on Apple’s safety representations and alleges economic injury from misrepresentations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Pirozzi has injury-in-fact from alleged misrepresentation and overpayment. | Plaintiff must allege concrete third-party data upload and causation; standing is inadequately pled. | Plaintiff has standing based on overpayment and misrepresentation; causation shown for key misrepresentation. |
| Statutory standing under UCL/CLRA/FAL | Overpayment injury satisfies injury-in-fact for statutory claims. | Same as Article III—standing insufficient for statutory claims. | Statutory standing satisfied; overpayment suffices for UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims. |
| UCL fraudulent prong | Plaintiff identified specific website statement about iOS security relied upon in purchasing. | Plaintiff fails to pinpoint a material misstatement with particularity. | Sufficient particular misrepresentation identified; causal link alleged. |
| UCL unfair prong | Apple’s conduct injurious with insufficient countervailing utility; balancing test favors plaintiff. | No analyzed utility or justification established by Apple. | Plaintiff pleads injury and lacks countervailing justification; prong supports liability. |
| FAL and CLRA claims | Advertisements and representation about security and gatekeeping support FAL/CLRA claims. | Insufficient specificity and misrepresentation proof under 9(b) and CLRA standards. | FAL and CLRA claims survive based on identified misrepresentation and reliance; CLRA proper consumer status. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re iPhone Application Litig., 844 F.Supp.2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (overpayment standing and misrepresentation focus in iPhone data case)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (economic injury as standing basis)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011) (injury-in-fact requiring money or property loss for UCL/CLRA)
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) (unlawful prong borrowing violations; consumer protection scope)
- Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (unfair prong guidance pending California Supreme Court clarification)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (reliance and causation; pleading standards for fraud-based claims)
- Hall v. Time Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 847 (2008) (injury-in-fact for UCL purposes; loss of money or property requirement)
- Vess v. Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) pleading for fraud claims; content requirements)