Williams v. Apple Inc.
4:19-cv-00782
| S.D. Tex. | Mar 24, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Larry D. Williams II sued Apple after alleging that a January 25, 2019 FaceTime/deposition was listened to and recorded without consent due to an iOS 12.1 software update that turned his iPhone into an unauthorized microphone.
- Williams’ amended complaint asserted negligence, strict products liability (design defect), failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, and statutory interception of communications under Texas law.
- Apple removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court had previously dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend.
- The court applied Texas substantive law (diversity jurisdiction) and evaluated whether the amended complaint pleaded sufficient factual matter to state plausible claims.
- The court concluded Williams’ amended complaint contained conclusory allegations and lacked factual detail (e.g., safer alternative designs, pre‑marketing knowledge, notice, causation, or any factual showing Apple intercepted or used communications) and dismissed all claims with prejudice as amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence | Apple owed duty to manufacture safe product and protect privacy; it breached that duty causing harm | Complaint fails to identify duty, specific breach, or proximate cause/foreseeability | Dismissed — conclusory pleading; no facts showing foreseeability or proximate cause |
| Strict products liability (design defect) | iOS 12.1 was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous (allowed secret recording) | No allegation of a feasible safer alternative or factual description of the design defect | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead safer alternative and pleaded only conclusory defect allegations |
| Failure to warn | Apple failed to warn users of the risk; Apple had knowledge (testing, tweets, letters) | No specific facts showing Apple knew or reasonably foresaw the risk before marketing iOS 12.1 | Dismissed — no factual basis that Apple knew pre‑marketing risk or omitted adequate warnings |
| Breach of warranty (express & implied) | Apple expressly/implicitly warranted the product was safe and fit for communications | No specificity about when/where express warranties were made, reliance, or notice for implied warranties | Dismissed — no particularized express‑warranty terms or required notice; no particular purpose different from ordinary use alleged |
| Statutory interception of communications | iOS 12.1 intercepted plaintiff’s private communications | No facts that Apple intercepted, obtained, used, or divulged any communication | Dismissed — allegation conclusory; no factual showing Apple intercepted or used communications |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: must plead factual content rendering claim plausible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must rise above speculative level; plausibility standard)
- Meador v. Apple Inc., 911 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2018) (proximate cause requires both cause in fact and foreseeability)
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (elements of design‑defect products liability claim under Texas law)
- McLennan v. Am. Eurocopter Corp., 245 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2001) (failure to warn can render an otherwise adequate product unreasonably dangerous)