Acosta et al v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Dolma Acevedo-Crespo, Natasha Acosta. Service due by 8/8/2011, (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Sheet, # 3 Current Address Notice, # 4 Summons Apple, Inc., # 5 Summons Backflip Studios, Inc., # 6 Summons Dictionary.com, LLC, # 7 Summons GOGII, Inc., # 8 Summons Outfit7, LTD, # 9 Summons Pandora Media, Inc., # 10 Summons Room Candy, Inc., # 11 Summons Sunstorm Interactive, Inc., # 12 Summons The Weather Channel, Inc.)(Nevares, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
NATASHA ACOSTA AND DOLMA ACEVEDOCRESPO, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
APPLE, INC., a Delaware Cororation; GOGII, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation; PANDORA MEDIA,
INC., a California Corporation; BACKFLIP
STUIDOS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; THE
WEATHER CHANNEL, INC., a Georgia
Corporation; DICTIONARY.COM, LLC, a
California Corporation; OUTFIT7 LTD., a Foreign
Corporation, ROOM CANDY, INC., a California
Corporation, SUNSTORM INTERACTIVE, INC.,
an Indiana Corporation,
Defendants.

:
: Civil Action No.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Natasha Acosta and Dolma Acevedo-Crespo, individually and as
representatives of the Class defined herein (the “Class”), bring this action against the defendants
identified below (“Defendants”), and aver as follows:
I.
1.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

This lawsuit involves the intentional interception, by Defendants, of Plaintiffs’

personally identifying information (“PII”). Defendants accomplish this by using iPhone and
iPad mobile device applications (“Apps”). Defendants capture Plaintiffs’ devices Unique Device
ID (“UDID”) – the unique identifying number that Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) assigns to each of its
iPhones and iPads – and transmits that information along with the devices’ location data to third-

party advertisers. Apple, as a joint venture with the remaining Defendants, aids and abets this
intentional taking and transmitting of Plaintiffs’’ PII. All of this is done without Plaintiffs’
consent and in violation of their legal rights. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to rectify this wrong
being systematically perpetrated upon them.
II.
2.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

Defendant Apple, Inc.’s principle executive offices and headquarters are located

in this District at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. Intradistrict assignment to the San
Jose Division is proper.
III.
3.

PARTIES

Plaintiff, Natasha Acosta, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At

all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Acosta has owned an iPhone and had the following
iPhone Apps installed on her iPhone: Pandora, Dictionary .com and Weather Channel.
4.

Plaintiff, Dolma Acevedo-Crespo, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Acevedo-Crespo has owned two iPhones and
had the following iPhone Apps installed on either or both iPhones: Talking Tom Cat, Weather
Channel, Paper Toss.
5.

Defendant, APPLE, INC. (“Apple”), is a California Corporation with its principal

place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple manufactures and sells the popular mobile
phone, the iPhone, as well as the iPad.
6.

Defendant, GOGII, INC. (“Gogii”), is a Delaware Corporation with its principal

place of business at 13160 Mindanao Way, Ste. 233, Marina Del Rey, California 90292.
Defendant, Gogii, is the maker of the mobile device application (“App”), Textplus4.

2

7.

Defendant, PANDORA MEDIA, INC., is a Delaware Corporation with its

principal place of business at 2101 Webster Street, Ste. 1650, Oakland, California 94612.
Defendant, Pandora, is the maker of the iPhone App, Pandora.
8.

Defendant, BACKFLIP STUDIOS, INC., is a Delaware Corporation with its

principal place of business in Boulder, Colorado. Defendant, Backflip Studios Inc., is the maker
of the iPhone App, Paper Toss.
9.

Defendant, THE WEATHER CHANNEL, INC., is a Georgia Corporation with its

principal place of business at 300 Interstate North Parkway SE, Atlanta, Georgia 30339-2403.
Defendant, The Weather Channel, Inc., is the maker of the iPhone App, Weather Channel.
10.

Defendant, DICTIONARY.COM, LLC, is a California Corporation with its

principal place of business at 555 12th Street, Ste. 100, Oakland, California 94607. Defendant,
Dictionary.com, LLC, is the maker of the iPhone App, Dictionary.com.
11.

Defendant, OUTFIT7 LTD., is Slovenia limited company with its principal place

of business at Palo Alto, California. Defendant, Outfit7 Ltd., is the maker of the iPhone App,
Talking Tom Cat.
12.

Defendant, ROOM CANDY, INC., is a California corporation with its principal

place of business in San Marino, California. Defendant, Room Candy, Inc., is the maker of the
iPhone App, Pimple Popper Lite.
13.

Defendant, SUNSTORM INTERACTIVE, INC., is an Indiana corporation with

its principal place of business at 9643 Oakhaven Court, Indianapolis, Indiana 46256. Defendant,
Sunstorm Interactive, is the maker of the iPhone App, Pumpkin Maker.
IV.
14.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 (federal

diversity jurisdiction), as one or more members of the proposed class are residents of a different
3

state from Defendants and the amount in controversy likely exceeds the jurisdictional amount
required by that code section. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal
question jurisdiction), as it involves allegations of violation of federal law. This Court has
pendent jurisdiction of all alleged state law claims.
15.

Venue is appropriate in this District because Defendant Apple, as well as certain

members of the proposed class, are residents of this District and Defendants have committed
torts within the Northern District of California.
16.

Each of the Defendants in this action, other than Defendant Apple, sells or

provides its mobile device application (“Apps”) to any iPhone and iPad user who wishes to
download them from the iTunes App Store. Each Defendant, other than Apple, has thus
marketed and sold its product within the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and, upon information
and belief, has sold or provided its products to millions of Puerto Rico residents. Furthermore,
each non-Puerto Rico Defendant has contracted with a Puerto Rico company, Defendant Apple,
to sell products on a nationwide basis. Defendant Apple is a resident of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and is a resident of this District.
17.

Thus, for those Defendants not residing within the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, there exist sufficient minimum contacts with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, such that
hailing them to answer for their violations of Plaintiffs’ legal rights in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
V.
18.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is a consumer Class Action lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3).

4

19.

The basis for Plaintiffs’ claims rest on Defendants’ use of an intrusive tracking

scheme implemented through the use of mobile device Apps on Plaintiffs’ iPhones and iPads.
20.

Apps are computer programs that users can download and install on their mobile

computer devices, including iPhones and iPads.
21.

While Apps have been available for some time, it was with the introduction of

Apple’s iPhone in 2007 that Apps propelled themselves into a position of prominence in the
daily lives of many mobile device users.
22.

With features more like a laptop than a mobile phone, the iPhone enabled millions

of mobile phone users to more effectively and more intuitively access the Internet and perform
the computer functions that have become increasingly important in today’s world. In addition,
the iPhone features numerous games and other forms of entertainment for its users.
23.

Unlike most earlier mobile phones, the iPhone allows users to install after-market

programs, called Apps, onto their mobile device. This allows users, such as Plaintiffs, to
customize their iPhones to perform functions other than those that the phones could perform
when they were initially sold to the consumers.
24.

Numerous other mobile device manufacturers have followed Apple’s lead in

allowing the installation of Apps on their users’ mobile devices.
25.

From the beginning, Apple has retained significant control over the software that

users can place on their iPhones. Apple claims that this control is necessary to ensure smooth
functioning of the iPhone. For instance, iPhone users are only allowed to download software
specifically licensed by Apple. If a user installs any software not approved by Apple, the users’
warranty is voided. If the user updates the operating system on their iPhone, the non-licensed
software is erased by Apple.

5

26.

Apple also retains a significant amount of control over the types of Apps it allows

into its newly created market place. Whether an App is allowed to be sold in the App Store is
completely at the discretion of Apple. Apple requires that proposed Apps go through a rigorous
approval process. Even if an App meets the “Program” requirements (as Apple describes it) the
App can still be rejected by Apple for any reason at all. It is estimated that approximately twenty
percent (20%) of all requests to place Apps for sale in the iTunes App Store are rejected by
Apple. In exchange for Apple agreeing to allow the App developer to participate in its
“Program,” Apple retains thirty percent (30%) of all revenues from sales of the App.
27.

Apple also exercises a significant amount of control over the functionality of the

Apps that it allows into its “Program.” For instance, Apple restricts how Apps interact with the
iPhone’s operating system and restricts Apps from disabling certain safety features of the iPhone.
28.

Despite Apple’s restrictions, Apple’s App Store has been a huge success. As of

October 20, 2010, there were at least 300,000 third-party applications officially available on the
App Store, with over seven (7) billion total downloads. Market researcher, Gartner Inc.,
estimates that world-wide App sales this year will total $6.7 billion.
29.

Apple’s iPhone has also succeeded in helping to bring hand-held computing to the

masses. Approximately fifty-nine (59) million people now have an iPhone. With the subsequent
introduction of its iPad (estimated sales of 8.5 million in 2010), Apple has obtained a remarkable
reach for its products.
30.

Thanks in part to the iPhone’s tremendous commercial success, mobile devices

(including iPhones and iPads) are now used by many consumers in almost all facets of their daily
lives, from choosing a restaurant, to making travel arrangements, to conducting bank
transactions. Most consumers carry their mobile devices with them everywhere they go. While

6

this convenience is valuable to consumers, so is the information that consumers put into their
mobile devices.
31.

Because Apps are software that users, such as Plaintiffs, download and install on

their iPhone (which is a hand-held computer), Apps have access to a huge amount of information
about a mobile device user. Apps can have access to such items as a mobile device’s contacts
list, username and password, and perhaps most importantly—the user’s location information.
Plaintiffs in this action consider the information on their phone to be personal and private
information.
32.

All of this information, however, is of extreme interest to many advertising

networks. This information is also highly valuable. It is for this reason that many Apps are given
away for free by the developer—just so that the App developer can sell advertising space on its
App. Some advertising networks pay App developers to place banner ads within their Apps.
Those ads are then populated with content from the third-party advertising network. In the
process, those third-party advertisers are able to access various pieces of information from the
user’s iPhone, supposedly in order to serve ads to the App user that are more likely to be of
interest to them.
33.

Considering that mobile advertising is projected to be $1.5 billion a year industry

by 2016, advertisers, website publishers, and ad networks are seeking ways to better track their
web users and find out more about them. The ultimate goal of many advertising networks is to
ascertain the identity of particular users so that advertisements can be tailored to their specific
likes and dislikes.
34.

Browser cookies are the traditional method used by advertisers to track web users’

activities. But browser cookies have a large hurdle when it comes to an advertiser’s ability to

7

track a viewer – users often delete them because they do not want advertising companies to have
information about them.
35.

Defendants, however, have found their solution – the Unique Device ID

(“UDID”) that Apple assigns to every iPhone and iPad it manufactures. ApClass ple’s UDID is
an example of a computing device ID generally known as a global unique identifier (“GUID"). A
GUID is a string of electronically readable characters and/or numbers that is stored in a
particular device or file (e.g., piece of hardware, copy of software, database, user account) for
purposes of subsequently identifying the device or file. Thus, a GUID is similar to a serial
number in that it is so unique that it reliably distinguishes the particular device, software copy,
file, or database from others, regardless of the operating environment.
36.

Because the UDID is unique to each iPhone and iPad, it is an attractive feature for

third-party advertisers looking for a means of reliably tracking a mobile device users’ online
activities. Because the UDID is not alterable or deletable by a iPhone or iPad user, some have
referred to the UDID as a “supercookie.” While not technically correct (because the UDID is on
the device from the time of its manufacturing), this description aptly summarizes the desirability
of access to the UDID from an advertising perspective.
37.

Apple’s UDID is concerning for several reasons. First, unlike with desktop

computers, mobile devices travel most everywhere with the user. Also, mobile devices tend to be
unique to an individual. While someone might borrow someone’s mobile device briefly, it is
unusual for individuals to frequently trade mobile devices with someone they know.
38.

Furthermore, unlike a desktop computer, the iPhone and iPad come equipped with

the tools necessary to determine their geographic location. Thus, being able to identify a unique
device, and combining that information with the devices’ geographic location, gives the

8

advertiser a huge amount of information about the user of a mobile device. From the perspective
of advertisers engaged in surreptitious tracking, this is a perfect means of tracking mobile device
users’ interests and likes on the Internet.
39.

Apple certainly understands the significance of its UDID and users’ privacy, as,

internally, Apple claims that it treats UDID information as “personally identifiable information”
because, if combined with other information, it can be used to personally identify a user.
40.

Unfortunately, however, unlike with browser cookies, Apple does not provide

users any way to delete or restrict access to their devices’ UDIDs. Traditional efforts to prevent
Internet tracking, such as deleting cookies, have no effect on Apps’ access to an iPhone’s or
iPad’s UDID.
41.

Apple has, however, recognized that it could go further to protect its users’

private information from being shared with third parties. Thus, in April of 2010, Apple amended
its Developer Agreement purporting to ban Apps from sending data to third-parties except for
information directly necessary for the functionality of the App. Apple’s revised Developer
Agreement provides that “the use of third party software in Your Application to collect and send
Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited.”
42.

This change prompted a number of third-party advertising networks (who have

been receiving a steady flow of user data from iPhone and iPad Apps) to protest. One prominent
critic was the CEO of AdMob. It appears that, as a result of this criticism, Apple has taken no
steps to actually implement its changed Developer Agreement or enforce it in any meaningful
way.

9

43.

In this lawsuit, each of the non-Apple Defendants, through the use of Apps

placed on Plaintiffs’ mobile devices, accessed Plaintiffs’ UDID and location information and
transmitted that information to numerous third-party ad networks.
44.

The general practice engaged in by Defendants was recently confirmed by Eric

Smith, Assistant Director of Information Security and Networking at Bucknell University in
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania and reported in his research report entitled, “iPhone Applications &
Privacy Issues: An Analysis of Application Transmission of iPhone Unique Device Identifiers
(UDID’s)” (last accessed December 19, 2010), online: http://www.pskl.us/wp/wpcontent/
uploads/2010/09/iPhone-Applications-Privacy-Issues.pdf;
45.

Further, the Wall Street Journal, as reported in the article “Your Apps Are

Watching You,” Scott Thurm and Yukari Iwatani Kane (December 18, 2010) independently
confirmed that each non-Apple Defendant systematically uses its iPhone App to obtain iPhone
users’ UDID and location data and transmit it to multiple third parties.
46.

None of the Defendants adequately informed Plaintiffs of their practices, and

none of the Defendants obtained Plaintiffs’ consent to do so.
47.

Apple’s 159-page, single spaced terms of service states: “By using any location-

based services on your iPhone, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its partners and licensees'
transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of your location data to provide such
products and services.” The iPad terms of service is nearly identical.
48.

The following Apps, however, do not provide location basedservices:
a.

Paper Toss is a mobile device application owned by Defendant, Backflip

Studios, Inc. Paper Toss is a gaming application that allows users to “throw” virtual paper

10

balls into a digital wastebasket target. Paper Toss shares its UDID and/or users’ Location
(City, ZIP Code and Latitude/Longitude) with numerous third parties, including ad
networks. No location based service is involved.
b.

TextPlus4 is a mobile device application owned by Defendant, GOGII,

Inc. TextPlus4 is a messaging application that allows users to send and receive text and
picture messages. TextPlus 4 shares its users’ UDID, Age, Gender, and and/or Location
(ZIP Code) with numerous third parties, including ad networks. No location based
service is involved.
c.

Dictionary.com is a mobile device application owned by Defendant,

Dictionary.com, LLC. Dictionary.com is a reference application that allows users to look up the
definition of various words and phrases. Dictionary.com shares its users’ UDID and/or Location
(City and ZIP Code) with numerous third parties, including ad networks. No
location based service is involved.
d.

Pandora is a mobile device application owned by Defendant, Pandora

Media, Inc. Pandora is a music application that allows users to access, stream and
download digital music files. Pandora shares its users’ UDID and Age, Gender, and/or
Location (City, ZIP Code and DMA Code) with third parties, including ad networks. No
location based service is involved.
e.

Talking Tom Cat is a mobile device application owned by Defendant,

Outfit7 Ltd. Talking Tom Cat is an entertainment application that allows users to interact
with a virtual pet cat that responds to touch and repeats everything said by the user with a

11

funny voice. Talking Tom Cat shares its users’ UDID and/or Location (ZIP Code), Phone ID,
Username and Password with third parties, including ad networks. No location based service is
involved.
f.

Pumpkin Maker is a mobile device application owned by Defendant

Sunstorm Interactive, Inc. Pumpkin Maker is a gaming application that allows users to
carve virtual Jack-O-Lanterns and apply various Halloween themed backgrounds.
Pumpkin Maker shares its users’ UDID and/or Location (City, DMA2 Code and
Latitude/Longitude) with third parties, including ad networks. No location based service
is involved.
49.

There are simply no location based services involved in these Apps that would

justify access to Plaintiffs’ location data. When this information is combined with Plaintiffs’
UDID information, it becomes personally identifying information. None of these Defendants
adequately disclose to Plaintiffs that they are transmitting such information to third-party
advertising networks.
50.

In fact, prior to the Wall Street Journal report referenced above, the following

Defendants did not have any privacy policy at all: BACKFLIP STUDIOS, INC. (Paper Toss
App), OUTFIT7 LTD. (Talking Tom Cat), ROOM CANDY, INC. (Pimple Popper), and
SUNSTORM INTERACTIVE, INC., (Pumpkin Maker).
51.

The remaining non-Apple Defendant, the Weather Channel does appear to

provide some location based services through its App, but still fails to sufficiently warn Plaintiffs
that they are transmitting location data in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ UDID to multiple third
parties.

12

52.

The UDID and location information obtained by each non-Apple Defendant was

sent to multiple third-party advertising networks (in the case of Defendant Pandora, eight third
parties).
53.

As discussed above, Apple considers users’ UDID information to be personally

identifying information. By attempting to change its App Development criteria, Apple
demonstrated that it is aware of the dangers posed by transmission of user data to third parties.
Apple has simply failed to follow through on that conviction.
54.

Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class were harmed by Defendants’ actions

in that their personal, private information was obtained without their knowledge or consent.
Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class were harmed in that their personal property – their
computer – was hijacked by Defendants and turned into a device capable of spying on their every
online move.
55.

Plaintiffs’ valuable UDID information, demographic information, location

information, as well as their application usage habits is a valuable commodity that they could
have sold to research firms. Plaintiffs also consider this information to be personal and private.
Such information was taken from them without their knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs should be
compensated for this harm. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for this invasion of their
privacy.
56.

Each of the non-Apple Defendants is liable to Plaintiffs for violation of their

statutory and common-law rights. Defendant Apple, by exercising significant control over App
developers and sharing profits with them, has created a “community of interest” with the other
Defendants to render them joint venturers, who are responsible for each other’s torts. Defendant
Apple has also aided and abetted the remaining Defendants in the commission of their legal

13

wrongs against Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

Based on the above, Apple has acted

sufficiently in concert with the remaining Defendants to impose liability.
57.

Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class bring this action to redress this

illegal and intrusive scheme designed by Defendants to intrude into their personal lives and
collect personal information about them.
58.

Plaintiffs seek damages for their injuries, an injunction to protect those not yet

harmed by these illegal activities, and, where legally available, attorneys’ fees and other costs
associated with the bringing of this action.
Defendant Apple Aided and Abetted the Other Defendants
59.

Defendant Apple knew or should have known the other Defendants’ conduct

constituted a breach of those Defendants’ duties to Plaintiffs and the Class.
60.

Defendant Apple gave substantial assistance to the other Defendants in

committing the acts alleged in this Complaint. Furthermore, Apple had a duty to Plaintiffs and
the Class to take steps to prevent such harm.
61.

Such conduct by Apple constitutes Aiding and Abetting pursuant to Puerto Rico

law and imposes liability on Defendant Apple for the other Defendant’s torts, as outlined below.
Defendant Apple is in a Joint Venture with the Other Defendants
62.

Defendant Apple’s conduct and that of the remaining Defendants constitutes and

undertaking by two or more persons jointly to carry out a single business enterprise for profit.
63.

By reviewing each App, setting the conditions for and requirements for Apps to

be sold and partnering with the above-named App developers in the sale of those Apps, Apple
has created a “community of interest” in a common undertaking of which each partner has or
exercises the right control and direction of the undertaking.

14

64.

By sharing the profits of all App sales of the other Defendants’ applications

through the iTunes App Store, Apple is a joint venture with each of the remaining Defendants.
65.

All members of a joint venture are jointly and severally liable for injuries

resulting from the tortious conduct of one of the joint venturers, Apple is thus legally responsible
for the tortuous conduct alleged in each of the Counts.
VI.
66.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and 23(b)(2) Plaintiffs bring this action on

behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, as representatives of the following class
(the “class”):
Each and every individual in the United States of America who has placed on of
Defendants’ iPhone Apps or iPad Apps on their iPhone or iPad in the four years
preceding the filing of this lawsuit (the “class”).
Excluded from the class are Defendants as well as all employees of this Court, including,
but not limited to, Judges, Magistrate Judges, clerks and court staff and personnel of the
United States District Courts for the District of Puerto Rico, the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit and the United States Supreme Court; their spouses and any
minor children living in their households and other persons within a third degree of
relationship to any such Federal Judge; and finally, the entire jury venire called to for jury
service in relation to this lawsuit. Also excluded from the class are any attorneys or other
employees of any law firms hired, retained and/or appointed by or on behalf of the named
Plaintiffs to represent the named Plaintiffs and any/or any proposed class members or
proposed class in this lawsuit.
Furthermore, to the extent that undersigned counsel has any legal interest to damages or
other monetary relief, or other relief due to the putative class (or any other rights as
potential putative class members), arising as a result of the causes of action asserted in
this litigation, such interest is hereby disclaimed by undersigned counsel.

67.

The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 are met in this case. The Class, as defined,

is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

Although discovery will be

necessary to establish the exact size of the class, it is likely, based on the nature of Defendants’
businesses, that it numbers in the millions.

15

68.

There are questions of fact and law common to the Class as defined, which

common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The
common questions include:
a. whether Defendants, as a regular practice, obtained and disseminated the class’
personally identifiable information without their knowledge and consent, or beyond
the scope of their consent;
b. whether Defendants failed to disclose material terms regarding the collection and
dissemination of the class’ personally identifiable information;
c. what use was made of the class’ personally identifiable information, including to
whom the information was sold for a profit;
d. whether Defendants used iPhone Apps or iPad Apps to send Plaintiffs’ UDID,
location, and/or Username/password information to third parties; and
e. whether Plaintiffs’ personally identifiable information was used to track their activity.
69.

Plaintiffs can and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of

the Class as defined and have no interest that conflict with the interests of the Class. This is
so because:
a.

All of the questions of law and fact regarding the liability of the Defendants are

common to the class and predominate over any individual issues that may exist, such that
by prevailing on their own claims, Plaintiffs will necessarily establish the liability of the
Defendants to all class members;
b.

Without the representation provided by Plaintiffs, it is unlikely that any class

members would receive legal representation to obtain the remedies specified by relevant
statutes and the common law;

16

c.

Plaintiffs have retained competent attorneys who are experienced in the conduct

of class actions. Plaintiffs and their counsel have the necessary resources to adequately
and vigorously litigate this class action, and Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of their
fiduciary responsibility to the class members and are determined to diligently discharge
those duties to obtain the best possible recovery for the Class.
70.

Defendants’ actions have affected numerous consumers in a similar way. The

class action is superior to any other method for remedying Defendants’ actions given that
common questions of fact and law predominate. Class treatment is likewise indicated to ensure
optimal compensation for the Class and limiting the expense and judicial resources associated
with thousands of potential claims.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I – COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
71.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each proceeding and succeeding paragraph as

though set forth fully at length herein.
72.

By accessing and transmitting Plaintiffs’ UDID and location data on the

computers of Plaintiffs and members of the class, Defendants have accessed Plaintiffs’
computers, in the course of interstate commerce and/or communication, in excess of the
authorization provided by Plaintiffs as described in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C).
73.

Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) by intentionally accessing

Plaintiffs’ and members of the class’s computers without authorization and/or by exceeding the
scope of that authorization .
74.

Plaintiffs’ computers, and those of the class, are protected computers pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B).

17

75.

Defendants thus further violated the Act by causing the transmission of a

program, information, code or command and as result caused harm aggregating at least $5,000 in
value.
76.

Defendants’ actions were knowing and/or reckless and, as outlined above, caused

harm to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class.
77.

Plaintiffs seek recovery for this loss, as well as injunctive relief, to prevent future

harm.
COUNT II – PUERTO RICO COMPUTER CRIME LAW
PUERTO RICO PENAL CODE §§ 183, 184, 185, 186 AND 187 AND LAW 311
DATED OCTOBER 5, 1999
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
78.

Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if set forth herein at

79.

The Puerto Rico Computer Crime Laws, regulate “tampering, interference,

length.

damage, and unauthorized access to lawfully created computer data and computer systems.”
80.

Defendants violated Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law by Knowingly accessing,

copying, using, made use of, interfering, and/or altering, data belonging to Plaintiffs and Class
members: (1) in and from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; (2) in the home states of the
Plaintiffs; and (3) in the state in which the servers that provided the communication link
between Plaintiffs and the websites they interacted with were located.
81.

Pursuant to Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law – Access means to gain entry to,

instruct, or communicate with the logical, arithmetical, or memory function resources of a
computer, computer system, or computer network.
82.

Pursuant to Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law, data means a representation of

18

information, knowledge, facts, concepts, computer software, computer programs or instructions.
Data may be in any form, in storage media, or as stored in the memory of the computer or in
transit or presented on a display device.
83.

Defendants have violated Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law by knowingly

accessing and without permission, altering, and making use of data from Plaintiffs’ computers in
order to devise and execute business practices to deceive Plaintiffs and Class member into
surrendering private electronic communications and activities for Defendants’ financial gain, and
to wrongfully obtain valuable private data from Plaintiffs.
84.

Defendants have violated Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law by knowingly

accessing and without permission, taking, or making use of data from Plaintiffs’ computers.
85.

Defendants have violated Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law by knowingly and

without permission, using and causing to be used Plaintiffs’ computer services.
86.

Defendants have violated Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law by knowingly and

without permission providing, or assisting in providing, a means of accessing Plaintiffs
computer, computer system, and/or computer network.
87.

Defendants have violated Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law by knowingly and

without permission accessing, or causing to be accessed, Plaintiffs computer, computer system,
and/or computer network.
88.

Puerto Rico Computer Crime Law states: For purposes of bringing a civil or a

criminal action under this section, a person who causes, by any means, the access of a computer,
computer system, or computer network in one jurisdiction from another jurisdiction is deemed to
have personally accessed the computer, computer system, or computer network in each
jurisdiction.

19

89.

Plaintiffs have also suffered irreparable injury from these unauthorized acts of

disclosure, to wit: their personal, private, and sensitive electronic data was obtained and used by
Defendants. Due to the continuing threat of such injury, Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at
law, entitling Plaintiffs to injunctive relief.
90.

Plaintiffs and Class members have additionally suffered loss by reason of these

violations, including, without limitation, violation of the right of privacy.
91.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within the

meaning of P.R. Computer Crime Law Defendants have caused loss to Plaintiffs in an amount to
be proven at trial. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their Reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant
to P.R. Civil Code.
92.

Plaintiffs and the Class members seek compensatory damages, in an amount to be

proven at trial, and injunctive or other equitable relief.
COUNT III – UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
32 LAWS OF PUERTO RICO SEC. 3341
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
93.

Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if set forth herein at

94.

In violation of Puerto Rico Unfair Trade Practices Act, 32 L.P.R.A. sec.3341 (the

length.

“PRUTPA”), Defendants’ conduct in this regard is ongoing and includes, but is not limited to,
unfair, unlawful and fraudulent conduct.
102. By engaging in the above-described acts and practices, Defendants have committed one or
more acts of unfair competition within the meaning of the PRUTPA and, as a result, Plaintiffs
and the Class have suffered injury-in-fact and have lost money and/or property—specifically,
personal information.

20

95.

Defendants’ business acts and practices are unlawful, in part, because they

violate PRUTPA, which prohibits false advertising, in that they were untrue and misleading
statements relating to Defendants’ performance of services and with the intent to induce
consumers to enter into obligations relating to such services, and regarding statements
Defendants knew were false or by the exercise of reasonable care Defendants should have known
to be untrue and misleading.
96.

Defendants’ business acts and practices are unfair because they cause harm and

injury-in-fact to Plaintiffs and Class Members and for which Defendants has no justification
other than to increase, beyond what Defendants would have otherwise realized, their profit in
fees from advertisers and their information assets through the acquisition of consumers’ personal
information.

Defendants’ conduct lacks reasonable and legitimate justification in that

Defendants have benefited from such conduct and practices while Plaintiffs and the Class
Members have been misled as to the nature and integrity of Defendants’ services and have, in
fact, suffered material disadvantage regarding their interests in the privacy and confidentiality of
their personal information. Defendants’ conduct offends public policy in Puerto Rico tethered to
the state constitutional right of privacy, and Puerto Rico statutes recognizing the need for
consumers to obtain material information that enables them to safeguard their own privacy
interests, including Puerto Rico Civil Code, Article 1802.
106. In addition, Defendants’ modus operandi constitutes a sharp practice in that Defendants
knew, or should have known, that consumers care about the status of personal information but
were unlikely to be aware of the manner in which Defendants failed to fulfill their commitments
to respect consumers’ privacy. Defendants are therefore in violation of the “unfair” prong of the
PRUTPA.

21

97.

Defendants’ acts and practices were fraudulent within the meaning of the

PRUTPA because they are likely to mislead the members of the public to whom they were
directed.
COUNT IV – TRESPASS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
98.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each proceeding and succeeding paragraph as

though set forth fully at length herein.
109. By obtaining UDID and location data from Plaintiffs’ and members of the Class’ computers
without their consent or knowledge, Defendants have improperly exercised dominion and control
over Plaintiffs’ and members of the Class’s personal property – their computer.
99.

Defendants’ actions were done knowingly and intentionally.

100.

Defendants’ actions caused harm to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class,

as described above.
101.

Plaintiffs and the proposed class seek damages for this harm as well as injunctive

relief to remedy this harm.
COUNT V – COMMON LAW CONVERSION
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
102.

Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if set forth herein at

103.

Defendants have taken Plaintiffs property in the form of information about them

length.

that is private and personal.
104.

Plaintiffs have been harmed by this exercise of dominion and control over their

information.

22

105.

Plaintiffs bring this case seeking recovery for their damages and appropriate

injunctive relief.
COUNT VI-UNJUST ENRICHMENT/
RESTITUTION
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)
106.

Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if set forth herein at

107.

Defendants have improperly and illegally profited from the obtainment and/or

length.

sale of Plaintiffs’ and members of the class’ personal, private data. Defendants’ actions have
been done knowingly and secretively with the intent that Plaintiffs not realize what was being
done.
108.

These actions constitute violations of both statutory as well as common law

obligations as outlined above.
109.

Under the principles of equity and good conscience, Defendants should not be

permitted to retain the benefits they have acquired through this unlawful conduct. All funds,
revenues and benefits that Defendants have unjustly received as a result of their actions rightfully
belong to Plaintiffs and the Class.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment on their behalf and on behalf of the other
members of the Class to the following effect:
a. declaring that this action may be maintained as a class action;
b. granting judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class against the
Defendants;
c. treble and/or punitive damages should the Court find that the Defendants acted in
willful or reckless disregard of the law;

23

d. declarations that Defendants' acts and practices alleged herein are wrongful;
e. an order directing restitution or disgorgement in an allowable amount to be proven at
trial;
f. compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial;
g. pre and post judgment interest to the maxim extent permissible;
h. an award to Plaintiffs and the class of their costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent permissible;
i. injunctive relief preventing Defendant from further collecting and disseminating the
Class' personally identifiable information and/or requiring more detailed disclosure and
informed consent from the Class regarding this activity; and
j. such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 7th day of April 2011.

s/ John F. Nevares
JOHN F. NEVARES
USDC-PR 130502
John F. Nevares & Associates, PSC
P.O. Box 13667
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908-3667
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR. (LA Bar #2926)
(PHV)
Of Counsel
Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.
P.O. Drawer H
24

106 W. Seventh Street
Reserve, LA 70084
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 985-536-6445
E-mail: [e-mail]

CAMILO K. SALAS, III (#11657)
Salas, L.C.
Of Counsel
650 Poydras, Suite 1650
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

25