Roman v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT Rendell Roman, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated against Apple, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-8183060.). Filed byRendell Roman. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Luzon, Rosemary) (Filed on 11/22/2013)

1 ROSE F. LUZON (SBN 221544)
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER

2 & SHAH, LLP

401 West A Street, Suite 2350

3 San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: [phone]

4 Facsimile: 619-234-7334
5

Email: [e-mail]

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
7 [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RENDELL ROMAN, Individually

12 And On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15 APPLE, INC.,
16

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

17
18

Plaintiff, Rendell Roman (“Plaintiff” or “Roman”), individually and on behalf of all

19 others similarly situated, by and through his attorneys, alleges on personal knowledge as to all
20 facts related to himself and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
21
22

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, and on behalf of a nationwide

23 class of individuals who purchased an Apple product that came equipped with the Apple
24 Lightning connector (“Lightning”) from Defendant, Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”). To
25 date, the Apple products that can be charged and connected to the computer exclusively by the
26 Lightning include: the iPhone 5, iPad (fourth generation), iPad Mini, iPod Nano (seventh
27 generation), and iPod Touch (fifth generation) (collectively “Apple devices”).
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2.

On September 12, 2012, Apple introduced Lightning as the new cable used to

2 charge and synchronize content for its new hardware devices, including the highly anticipated
3 iPhone 5, which sold in excess of five million units over the weekend following its launch.
4

3.

In its official press release materials on September 12, 2012, Apple touted the new

5 Lightning cable as being “designed for today’s uses” and “smaller, smarter and more durable
6 than the previous connector.”
7

4.

In Apple’s press release and advertising videos, the Lightning connectors were

8 shown to easily plug in and out of the iPhone device, without issues of deterioration, breakage, or
9 failure. These images and representations understandably and intentionally led consumers to
10 believe that one could use the Lightning cables repeatedly during normal use to plug and unplug
11 the cable in order to recharge or sync their Apple devices.
12

5.

Based upon Apple’s representations, Plaintiff and members of the Class

13 purchased the new Apple devices with the Lightning connectors.
14

6.

However, contrary to Apple’s representations, advertisements, and statements, the

15 Lightning is defective and is prone to fraying, breakage, deterioration, and failure, and does
16 substantially fray, break, deteriorate, and fail.
17

7.

In particular, the Lightning end that plugs into the Apple device deteriorates,

18 externally and/or internally, to such a degree so as to make charging the Apple device completely
19 impossible, or possible only by positioning the cord in a specific manner, using electric tape, or
20 something similar, to hold the Lightning cable together, or other means to maintain the
21 connection and angle between the Lightning and the Apple device. The deterioration can and
22 does become so severe that the exposed wires of the eroded Lightning create a safety hazard.
23 These exposed wires have led to sparks and fires, endangering the health and safety of consumers
24 and the public.
25

8.

To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge and information, the failure occurs because of

26 the poor quality and manufacture of the Lightning connectors, regardless of the level of care
27 taken by consumers in using the Lightning.
28
2

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

9.

This defect is common to all Lightning cables, even when consumers use and care

2 for the cable as recommended and intended by Apple.
3

10.

The defect in the Lightning renders it unsuitable for its principal and intended

4 purpose; namely, being the exclusive means for synchronizing data for and charging the battery
5 of the associated Apple devices.
6

11.

The consistent failure of the Lightning leaves consumers with useless, expensive

7 Apple devices, unless and until they purchase a replacement Lightning. Due to the Lightning’s
8 proprietary nature, consumers are forced to purchase replacements directly from Apple, the sole
9 manufacturer of the Lightning, in order to recharge and continue using their Apple devices.
10

12.

Apple, which has acknowledged the problem with the Lightning, responded to

11 users’ complaints by denying coverage beyond the warranty period for the associated devices and
12 requiring them to purchase replacement cables from Apple.
13

13.

In addition to the hundreds of dollars paid to purchase the Apple devices charged

14 by the Lightning Connector, Plaintiff and members of the Class paid either $19 or $29 for
15 replacement Lightning cables, expecting, in return, that Apple would provide fully functioning,
16 durable cables. Instead, Apple delivered an admittedly defective product that fails to adequately
17 perform its intended function, requiring Plaintiff and Class members to purchase multiple
18 replacement Lightning cables–oftentimes once every two or three months–in order to continue
19 using their Apple devices.
20

14.

Apple’s conduct violates, inter alia, California warranty laws.

21

15.

Moreover, Apple possessed knowledge of the defect prior to distributing the

22 Lightning, in violation of California consumer protection laws. In 2012, Apple spent
23 approximately $3.4 billion on research and development, recently stating that “focused
24 investments in research and development are critical to its future growth and competitive
25 position in the marketplace and are directly related to timely development of new and enhanced
26 products.” Prior to release, Apple undergoes stringent in-house testing of its hardware devices,
27 which would have revealed the Lightning’s defect. In failing to disclose the defect at the same
28 time it was promoting the brilliant design and superior durability of the Lightning, Apple
3

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 committed fraud upon the millions of unsuspecting customers who purchased Apple products
2 chargeable only by the Lightning without any knowledge of the defect.
3
4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.

This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under the Class Action Fairness

5 Act of 2005. The amount-in-controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of
6 interest and other costs, and there is minimal diversity because certain members of the class are
7 citizens of a different state than any defendant, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
8

17.

Venue is appropriate in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because

9 Apple’s principal place of business is in Cupertino, California, and a substantial portion of the
10 events and conduct giving rise to the violations alleged in this Complaint occurred in this
11 District.
12
13

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
18.

Pursuant to Local Rules 3-2(c) and 3-5(b), this action should be assigned to the

14 San Jose Division of the Northern District of California because Apple resides in the County of
15 Santa Clara and, upon information and belief, a substantial part of the acts, events, or omissions
16 giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims were performed in Santa Clara County.
17
18

THE PARTIES
19.

Plaintiff, a resident and citizen of the City of Escondido, San Diego County, in the

19 State of California, purchased an iPhone 5 with the Lightning in or around October 2012.
20 Plaintiff’s Declaration pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1780(c) is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
21

20.

Apple is a California corporation that is licensed to, and is doing business in

22 California and throughout the United States. Apple is a citizen of the State of California, with its
23 principal place of business located in Cupertino, California. At all relevant times, Apple
24 designed, manufactured, promoted, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the Lightning with its
25 Apple devices throughout the United States and California.
26
27
28
4

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1
2

STATEMENT OF COMMON FACTS
21.

The Lightning is the new cable, designed and marketed by Apple, used to charge

3 various Apple devices, as well as to synchronize data and provide media input and output. The
4 Lightning was introduced in September 2012, along with the new Apple devices that exclusively
5 use the Lightning to perform the above-stated functions. The proprietary Lightning connector
6 replaced the 30-pin connector that, up until then, was used for the iPhones, iPods, and iPads sold
7 by Apple since 2003.
8

22.

Significantly, the Lightning’s ability to deliver on its promised uses is heavily

9 dependent on its durability and ability to charge the Apple devices under normal conditions of
10 using and handling the Lightning, including the plugging and unplugging of the Lightning from
11 the Apple devices.
12

23.

On September 12, 2012, Apple introduced Lightning as the new cable used to

13 charge and synchronize content for Apple devices. Prior to the release of the Lightning, Apple
14 marketed the new cable as a significant improvement from the previous 30-pin cable. As noted,
15 the Lightning cable was claimed to be “smaller, smarter and more durable than the previous
16 connector.”
17

24.

Apple’s published marketing materials specifically highlight the Lightning as an

18 enhanced product feature and promise that the Lightning cables will charge the Apple devices
19 reliably. For example, Apple’s website store describes the product as follows: “This USB 2.0
20 cable connects your iPhone, iPad, or iPod with Lightning connector to your computer’s USB port
21 for syncing and charging or to the Apple USB Power Adapter for convenient charging from a
22 wall outlet.”
23

25.

Contrary to Apple’s representations, however, individuals who purchased Apple

24 devices with the Lightning and/or the Lightning cable by itself directly from Apple, including
25 Plaintiff, experienced significant problems with the Lightning’s durability and reliability in
26 charging their Apple devices. In some cases, deterioration has become so severe as to lead to
27 sparks and fires as a result of the exposed Lightning’s exposed wires.
28
5

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

26.

Specifically, the end that connects to the Apple device becomes damaged, frayed,

2 and/or deteriorated within a few months during the course of its normal and intended use,
3 eventually rendering the cable unable to continue charging or syncing the device. Thereafter,
4 users are required to purchase costly replacement Lightning cables directly from Apple in order
5 to continue using their Apple devices.
6

27.

To further boost its sales of the proprietary Lightning, Apple has embedded

7 authentication chips in official Apple-manufactured Lightning cables to make it difficult for
8 third-party manufacturers to produce unofficial Lightning cables and accessories. Moreover,
9 Apple’s new operating system for its devices, iOS 7, released on September 18, 2013, works in
10 conjunction with the authentication chip to block all unauthorized, third-party Lightning cables
11 from charging the Apple devices.
12

28.

In order to continue using Apple devices that already cost consumers several

13 hundreds of dollars, consumers must pay either $19 or $29 to replace their defective Lightning
14 cables, only to have the replacement cables break again within a few months. Consumers often
15 have to purchase multiple Lightning cables to ensure the continued use of their Apple devices.
16 One consumer reported going through 12 Lightning cables in less than a year.
17

29.

Many consumers have complained of the Lightning’s tendency to break during

18 normal use on various Internet forums, including Apple’s official online support communities.
19 One consumer noted, “With all the cellphones I’ve had in the past, I’ve never had a problem
20 where the charger cord starts to break away where you could see the wires. This is the worst
21 charger ever! I don’t mishandle it but just from daily wear it weakens (SO easily) and you have to
22 wiggle the cord so that the phone will recognize it...I’ve taped it now and still not working
23 properly...ridiculous. Apple needs to make a better charger that will last more than a year. . . .”
24 (Somi L from Forest Hills, Oct 6, 2013). Another consumer complained, “I have now gone
25 through 3 cables since getting the phone in February. That’s a little over 2 months of use for a
26 cable. I don’t mistreat my stuff or pull the cables out by the cable instead of the plug I don’t twist
27 them or tie them up. I don’t do stuff with the phone plugged in. The only movement is picking
28 up and putting the phone down while plugging and unplugging. And these cables just start
6

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 fraying on the lightning side.” (Paul S from Seffner, Sep 12, 2013). One consumer experienced
2 a more severe incident and warned, “Beware these are very dangerous, picked up my charging
3 phone in my car and was shocked by exposed wires [of my iPhone 5 cable]. I then began
4 checking mine and my husbands other iphone 5 cables to realized that they are all breaking in the
5 same exact spot. Not worth $19.99 Apple needs to recall these cables and introduce a new
6 reinforced design. NOT HAPPY!” (Kasey B from Baytown, Sep 6, 2013), See, e.g.,
7 http://store.apple.com/us/reviews/MD818ZM/A/lightning-to-usb-cable?page=1;
8 https://discussions.apple.com. Several videos of the Lightning’s failure to charge Apple devices
9 have also been posted on YouTube. See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj64ToNxgSE;
10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLFMDohdwRo (showing sparks flying out of the Lightning
11 end of the cable).
12

30.

The issue is so pervasive that there have also been YouTube videos on how to

13 prevent the Lightning from breaking. See, e.g., www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMsy-xSbPNI
14 (using the spring from a ballpoint pen to reinforce the Lightning cable).
15

31.

The defect in the Lightning cable affects every unit, including units that have yet

16 to be shipped to their purchasers.
17

32.

To this day, Apple has not corrected or recalled the faulty Lightning cables, and

18 consumers continue to experience problems with the Lightning, which they must replace at
19 significant out-of-pocket cost to them.
20 Plaintiff’s Experience
21

33.

In or around October 2012, Roman purchased a new iPhone 5 equipped with the

22 Lightning from an AT&T store in Escondido, California. He purchased the phone as an upgrade
23 for $199, plus taxes and activation fees.
24

34.

At all pertinent times, Roman has maintained and used the Lightning as

25 recommended and intended by Apple. Although Roman has used the Lightning normally, the
26 cable began to deteriorate and fail. However, because of the defect described herein, Roman has
27 been unable to properly charge or sync his Apple device.
28
7

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

35.

In or around July 2013, Roman began experiencing problems using the Lightning

2 cable to charge his iPhone. He noticed that his phone had the same amount of battery remaining,
3 despite being plugged in for several hours to a working outlet via the Lightning cable.
4

36.

Roman’s Lightning cable deteriorated to the point that he has to tape the end that

5 plugs into the iPhone with electrical tape. However, Roman continues to experience faulty
6 charges such that his phone does not fully charge or the Lightning connector disconnects from
7 the phone’s connection port, despite being left undisturbed.
8

37.

On October 5, 2013, Roman contacted Apple via telephone and requested a

9 replacement Lightning cable. He was informed that his one-year warranty on his iPhone 5
10 (which also covers its accessories) expired ten days prior, and, thus, he would have to incur out11 of-pocket expenses to purchase a new Lightning cable from Apple.
12 Class Members’ Experiences
13

38.

As set forth above, Plaintiff’s experience mirrors those of numerous other users of

14 Apple’s Lightning cable. The Internet is replete with references to the common and profound
15 problems that consumers have experienced with the Lightning as a result of its defective
16 manufacture. The problem with the Lightning is both significant and widespread. Consumers
17 have made the following representative complaints about the Lightning:
18

•

19

Apple seriously need to address this issue!!!! while charging my phone last nite I
lay on my bed reading only to turn round to see smoke coming from the charger
and an orange glow which made it hot to the touch!!! I have three small children
in my house what if I hadn’t noticed? or even fallen asleep the consequences to
which do not even bare thinking of!!!!! whilst I am in general appreciation of the
iphon5 itself having had them since there release I am disgusted at the poor
quality the new style of wire has brought to the product.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

iphone5 charger wire
Written by Eva Louise T from Tamworth - Sep 16, 2013

•

iPhone 5 lightening charging cable.. HORRIBLE
Written by Tina R from Margate - Sep 22, 2013
I’ve had my iPhone 5 since Dec 2012. It was replaced in March. When they also
gave me a new lightning cable bcs the one I used for under 4 months was twisted
and frayed and did not charge properly. (Although other things were wrong as
well which is why the phone was replaced) since then. I’ve been thru 12 cables.
Original apple cables. Which last about 3 months. It’s ridiculous. I’ve turned to
my mophie as my only dependable way of charging whether at home or on the go.
I’ve thought about using the adapter the small lightning adapter that can be
8

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

plugged into a micro USB cable and can charge the phone that way. Has anyone
used this adapter and found it to be more helpful. Bcs micro USB cables are much
more reliable.. So my next trial and error test probably will be that. But for a
product like apple.. I’m very surprised by the lack of quality to some of the
accessories primarily the cable for my iPhone 5. It’s had me so frustrated. Over
and over again, the cables only last so long. Now I’m down to the last one. Which
as of today. Only charges from a certain angle and if it’s moved. It stops charging.
Infuriating!!

2
3
4
5
6

•

4 broken cables
Written by Michael W from Maple Grove - Sep 23, 2013

7

This cable is the worst thing that has ever been made by Apple!

8

The cables become worthless in Months. I have had 4 of them and all of them
have gone bad. They start out by being finicky and then slowly downgrade until
they just don’t work at all. I have to admit that first one I treated the same way as
my older 30 pin cables (which were nearly indestructible) pulling it out by the
wire or just not being careful. But the remaining 3 cables I have treaded extremely
gently and still no luck. I have no idea why Apple can’t come out with a decent
cable for their own devices. Everyone that asks about by Apple device I tell them
everything was fine until Lightning came out and it’s time for them to look at
Non-Apple devices.

9
10
11
12
13

•

14

My family has 5 different Apple products that use the new lightening cable and
after only 4 months, we are down to one. Each one has split, broken or just
stopped working. We have bought several replacements and each break within
weeks. They bend too easily and the heads pop off the cord too easily. You would
think with a 500 dollar phone they would make something with better quality,
built to last as long as the phone. Never had this problem with the old chargers.
They need to upgrade or at least offer free trade ins with the broken chargers.
Unfortunately, I am off, once again, to the Apple store to shell out another 20
dollars on these awful chargers.

15
16
17
18
19
20

•

21
23
25
26
27
28

Dangerous.
Written by James R from Fargo - Aug 28, 2013
The original cord shocked me because it fell apart at the end. Being an electrician
its nothing new to me but out of a consumer product that kids can get their hands
on it made me a wee bit enraged. I deal with wire daily and I don’t understand
why apple uses such junk. Its not that hard apple! Listen to your loyal people!

22
24

WORST CHARGER EVER MADE
Written by Amy R from Lansdowne - Aug 29, 2013

http://store.apple.com/us/reviews/MD818ZM/A/lightning-to-usb-cable?page=0.
•

Has anyone else had any issues with their lightning connectors? I just bought an
iPad 4 two weeks ago, and unfortunately the lightning connector broke off inside
the iPad last night. I took it to the Apple Store, and they charged me $300 for a
replacement iPad.
It appears that the lightning connector is significantly more flimsy and fragile than
the old wide connector. Please be careful! (smarkle, Feb 6, 2013 2:29 PM).
9

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4783147?start=0&tstart=0.
2

•

3
4
5
6
7

My snooze alarm went off this morning. As I reached to my night table to silent
my Harpsichord by touching the snooze button, a strong electronic burn smell
accompanied several dual vibes (the ones that happen when you plug your phone
in and its on vibe mode) occurred. I jumped up from my bed to notice smoke
coming from the end of the cable just before the lightning connector! Is this a
known issue? This is the cord that came with the iPhone5 when I purchased it. I
noticed the second cord I purchased from Apple store two months later is
reinforced at that section. Was there a recall that no one mentioned? Thank God I
unplugged it before it damaged my phone or worse, set my bed on fire;
considering I usually put it under my pillow once I hit snooze. (KPW photo, Feb
6, 2013 8:50 AM).

8 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4782185?start=0&tstart=0.
9
10

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
39.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

11 Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) seeking injunctive and other relief on behalf of himself
12 and all others similarly situated members of the Class consisting of all persons who purchased an
13 Apple device with the Lightning and/or purchased the Lightning in the United States between
14 September 12, 2012 and the present.
15

40.

Specifically excluded from the Class is Apple, its officers, directors, agents,

16 trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, principals, servants,
17 partners, joint ventures, or entities controlled by Apple, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or
18 other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Apple and/or their officers and/or directors,
19 or any of them.
20

41.

The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

21 impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the proposed
22 Class currently contains well over two million members. Although the exact number of
23 members of the Class is unknown to Plaintiff at the present time, the precise number of Class
24 members is known by Apple and, thus, Class members may be ascertained and notified of the
25 pendency of this action by first class mail, electronic mail, and/or by published notice.
26

42.

Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiff

27 and all members of the Class purchased Apple devices with the Lightning and have sustained
28 damages arising out of the same wrongful course of conduct.
10

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

43.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and

2 predominate over any questions solely affecting individual Class members. Among the questions
3 of law and fact common to the Class are:
4

a.

5

Whether Defendant advertised and sold the Apple devices by promoting
the durability and superiority of the Lightning;

6

b.

Whether the Lightning exhibits an inherent design defect resulting in

7

abnormal deterioration and eventual failure to charge or sync the Apple

8

device;

9

c.

10

releasing the Lightning for sale along with the associated Apple devices;

11

d.

12

Whether Apple made false and misleading representations about the
Lightning;

13

e.

14

Whether Apple failed to disclose material facts about the frailty and
unreliability of the Lightning to consumers; and

15

f.

16
17

Whether Apple had a knowledge of this defect before advertising and

Whether such a failure violates statutory and common law prohibitions
against such conduct, as detailed more fully below.

44.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the

18 members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel highly experienced in complex consumer
19 class action litigation and intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff is a member of
20 the Class and does not have interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the other members of the
21 Class.
22

45.

A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient

23 adjudication of this controversy since, among other things, joinder of all members of the Class is
24 impracticable. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by many individual Class members may be
25 relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it virtually impossible for
26 Class members individually to seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged. Plaintiff does not
27 foresee any difficulty in the management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as
28 a class action.
11

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

46.

The claims asserted herein are applicable to all individuals and entities throughout

2 the United States who purchased an Apple device equipped with the Lightning. The State of
3 California has sufficient state interest through a significant contact or aggregation of contacts to
4 the claims asserted by each member of the Class so that the choice of California law is not
5 arbitrary or unfair.
6

47.

7

Certification of the Class under the laws of California is appropriate because:
a.

8

Apple is a corporation conducting substantial business in and from
California;

9

b.

10

Apple’s principal place of business and corporate headquarters are located
in California;

11

c.

12

Decisions regarding Apple’s representations and omissions regarding the
Lightning were made in California;

13

d.

Apple’s marketing, promotional activities and literature, as well as its

14

warranties, are coordinated at, emanate from and/or are developed at its

15

California headquarters;

16

e.

The statutory consumer protection claims asserted in this Complaint may

17

be appropriately brought on behalf of California and out-of-state Class

18

members; and

19
20

f.
48.

A significant number of Class members reside in the State of California.

Adequate notice can be given to Class members directly using information

21 maintained in Apple’s records, or through notice by publication.
22

49.

The Class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

23 Procedure because Apple has acted on grounds generally applicable to the putative Class, thereby
24 making final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the
25 claims raised by the Class.
26

50.

The Class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of

27 Civil Procedure because questions of law and fact common to Class members will predominate
28 over questions affecting individual members, and a class action is superior to all other methods
12

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy and causes of action described in this
2 Complaint.
3

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act –
California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.)

4
5

51.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though

6 fully set forth herein.
7

52.

This cause of action is brought under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,

8 California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”). Plaintiff and the Class are consumers as
9 defined by California Civil Code § 1761(d), and the Lightning constitutes goods and services
10 within the meaning of the CLRA.
11

53.

Defendant violated and continues to violate the CLRA by engaging in the

12 following deceptive practices proscribed by California Civil Code § 1770(a) in connection with
13 transactions intended to result in, and that did result in, the sale of the Apple devices with the
14 Lightning and/or the Lightning cables at issue herein to Plaintiff and members of the Class in
15 violation of, inter alia, the following provisions:
16

a.

17

Representing the goods and services have characteristics, uses, or benefits
which they do not have (Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5));

18

b.

19

Representing the goods and services are a particular standard, quality, or
grade if they are of another (Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(7));

20

c.

21

Advertising goods and services with the intent not to sell them as
advertised (Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(9));

22

d.

23

Representing a transaction involves rights, remedies, or obligations that it
does not have or involve (Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(14)); and

24

e.

Representing the goods and services have been supplied in accordance

25

with a previous representation when they have not (Cal. Civ. Code §

26

1770(a)(16)).

27

54.

Plaintiff and other Class members, in purchasing and using the Lightning as

28 herein alleged, did reasonably act in response to Defendant’s above representations or would
13

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 have considered the omitted facts detailed herein material to their purchase decision. Plaintiff
2 and the Class have suffered damage by the wrongful acts and practices of Defendant that are in
3 violation of California Civil Code § 1781.
4

55.

The representations regarding the Lightning were material to Plaintiff and

5 members of the Class. Defendant intended that Plaintiff and Class members would rely on these
6 representations and they did, in fact, rely on the representations.
7

56.

Under Civil Code § 1782(a), Plaintiff provided the required 30-day notice, on

8 October 17, 2013, before filing the Complaint pursuant to Civil Code § 1782(d). Following
9 receipt of the notice, Apple refused to provide the requested remedies to the Classes.
10

57.

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover actual or statutory compensatory/monetary

11 damages as authorized by Civil Code § 1780(a)(1) and Civil Code § 1781(a)(1), restitution as
12 applicable and authorized under Civil Code § 1780(a)(3), and punitive damages as authorized by
13 Civil Code § 1780(a)(4), which are appropriate in this case in light of Defendant’s knowing,
14 intentional, malicious, fraudulent and unconscionable conduct; Defendant’s reckless disregard of
15 its legal obligations to Plaintiff and the members of Class; and/or as otherwise recoverable under
16 Civil Code § 1780(a)(4).
17

58.

Plaintiff and the members of Class also are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and

18 costs pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1780 and 1781.
19

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(False and Misleading Advertising in Violation of
California Business and Professions Code § 17500, et seq.)

20
21

59.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though

22 fully set forth herein.
23

60.

Defendant’s acts and practices as described herein have deceived and/or are likely

24 to deceive members of the Class and the public. Apple has spent millions of dollars to advertise,
25 including through its website and on the Internet, to call attention to, or give publicity to,
26 Lightning’s improved durability and functionality. Apple uniformly advertises the Lightning
27 cable as being “designed for today’s uses” and “smaller, smarter and more durable than the
28 previous connector.” These representations are accompanied by images of the Lightning being
14

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 plugged and unplugged into various Apple devices without issue, despite the fact that it knew or
2 should have known of the poor quality and inability of the Lightning to endure normal use over a
3 prolonged period of time. In reality, the Lightning is not more durable than the previous 30-pin
4 charger cable because Plaintiff and Class members have experienced severe deterioration and
5 eventual failure of the Lightning, requiring consumers to incur out-of-pocket expenses to replace
6 the defective Lightning cables.
7

61.

By its actions, Apple is disseminating uniform advertising concerning its products

8 and services, which by its nature is unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading within the meaning of
9 California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq. Such advertisements are likely to
10 deceive, and continue to deceive, the consuming public for the reasons detailed above.
11

62.

The above-described false, misleading, and deceptive advertising Apple

12 disseminated continues to have the likelihood to deceive in that Apple has failed to disclose the
13 true and actual performance and durability of the Lightning. Apple has failed to initiate a public
14 information campaign to alert consumers of the Lightning’s deficiencies, which continues to
15 create a misleading perception of the Lightning’s performance and durability.
16

63.

In making and disseminating the statements alleged herein, Apple should have

17 known its advertisements were untrue and misleading, in violation of California Business &
18 Professions Code § 17500, et seq. Plaintiff and the Class members based their decisions to
19 purchase Apple devices equipped with the Lightning in substantial part on Defendant’s
20 misrepresentations and omitted material facts regarding the defect in the Lightning required for
21 the continued use of their Apple devices. The revenues to Apple attributable to products sold in
22 those false and misleading advertisements amount to millions of dollars for the Apple devices
23 equipped with the Lightning and/or the Lightning cables itself. Plaintiff and the Class were
24 injured in fact and lost money or property as a result.
25

64.

Defendant intended for Plaintiff and Class members to rely on these

26 representations and omissions and Plaintiff and Class members consequently did rely on
27 Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions.
28
15

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

65.

The misrepresentations and non-disclosures by Apple of the material facts

2 detailed above constitute false and misleading advertising and therefore constitute a violation of
3 California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.
4

66.

As a result of Apple’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class members request

5 that this Court enjoin Apple from continuing to violate California Business & Professions Code §
6 17500, et. seq. Such conduct is ongoing and continues to this date. Plaintiff and the Class are
7 therefore entitled to the relief described below as appropriate for this cause of action.
8

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Practices in Violation of
California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)

9
10

67.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though

11 fully set forth herein.
12

68.

The Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200,

13 et seq., defines unfair competition to include any “unfair,” “unlawful,” or “fraudulent” business
14 act or practice.
15

69.

Defendant violated, and continues to violate, California Business and Professions

16 Code § 17200, et seq., by misrepresenting the Lightning as a durable cable accessory that could
17 be used, inter alia, as a power charger, a way to synchronize data, and provider of output audio
18 and video data, when it knew or should have known that the cable was defective.
19

70.

By engaging in the above described acts and practices, Defendant has committed

20 an unfair business practice within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code §
21 17200, et seq. Consumers suffered substantial injury they could not reasonably have avoided
22 other than by not purchasing the product.
23

71.

Defendant’s acts and practices have deceived and/or are likely to deceive Class

24 members and the public and thus constitute a fraudulent business practice. Apple uniformly
25 advertised the Lightning as “smarter and more durable” than the previous 30-pin connector,
26 accompanied with images of repeatedly plugging and unplugging the Lightning from Apple
27 devices without issue, despite the fact that it knew or should have known of the Lightning’s
28 defect and inability to endure normal use over a prolonged period of time. Evidencing this
16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 knowledge is Apple’s need to replace thousands of cables under warranty, as well as the
2 additional sales of the Lightning since its release in September 2012.
3

72.

The acts and practices of Apple are an unlawful business act or practice because

4 they violate, inter alia, California Civil Code §§ 1668, 1709, 1710, and 1750 et seq., California
5 Commercial Code § 2313, and California Business and Professions Code § 17560.
6

73.

As discussed above, Plaintiff and the members of the Class purchased Apple

7 devices and/or Lightning cables directly from Apple and/or their authorized agents. Plaintiff and
8 members of the Class were injured in fact and lost money or property as a result of such acts of
9 unfair competition.
10

74.

The injuries suffered by Plaintiff and Class members are greatly outweighed by

11 any potential countervailing benefit to consumers or to competition. Nor are they injuries that
12 Plaintiff and Class members should have or could have reasonably avoided.
13

75.

Apple received the funds paid by Plaintiff and the members of the Class. Apple

14 profited enormously by misrepresenting the durability of the Lightning and not disclosing
15 material problems and quality of the Lightning. Apple’s revenues attributable thereto are thus
16 directly traceable to the millions of dollars paid out by Plaintiff and the Class for the Apple
17 devices and replacement Lightning cables.
18

76.

Unless Apple is enjoined from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair, and

19 fraudulent business acts and practices as described herein, Plaintiff and the Class will continue to
20 be injured by Apple’s conduct.
21

77.

Apple, through its acts of unfair competition, has acquired money from Class

22 members. Plaintiff and the Class request this Court to enjoin Apple from continuing to violate
23 California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
24

78.

The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct described herein is ongoing and

25 continues to this date. Plaintiff and the Class, therefore, are entitled to relief described below as
26 appropriate for this cause of action.
27
28
17

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act –
15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312)

2
3

79.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though

4 fully set forth herein.
5

80.

This cause of action is brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15

6 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312 (“MMWA”).
7

81.

The Lightning cables are “consumer products” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).

8

82.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members are “consumers” as defined by

9 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).
10

83.

At all relevant times, Apple is a “supplier” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4).

11

84.

At all relevant times, Apple is a “warrantor” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(5).

12

85.

Apple provided Plaintiff and Class members with “implied warranties” as defined

13 by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(7).
14

86.

Apple’s implied warranty of merchantability accompanied the sale of the Apple

15 devices equipped with the Lightning cables to Plaintiff and Class members.
16

87.

Apple is a merchant with respect to the sale of the Apple Lightning cables that

17 came with the select Apple devices sold in 2012 onwards.
18

88.

Apple provided Plaintiff and the Class members with an implied warranty that the

19 Lightning cables were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purpose for which they were sold.
20

89.

The Lightning cables are not fit for their ordinary purpose because, inter alia, the

21 Lightning is defective and prone to substantial breakage and failure, and has substantially broken
22 and failed, and there is currently no fix for the defective Lightning cables.
23

90.

The alleged defects are so basic that they render the Lightning unfit for the

24 ordinary purpose for which they are sold and used. In some cases, the defects are so severe that
25 the resulting exposed wires of deteriorated Lightning cables pose a serious safety hazard.
26

91.

Apple knew, or had reason to know, that Plaintiff and Class members purchased

27 the Lightning cables to reliably recharge and sync data for their Apple devices, so that the Apple
28 devices retain their use and functionality, under conditions of normal handling of the cables.
18

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

92.

The Lightning does not conform to the promises and affirmations uniformly

2 issued by Apple in its sales materials and warranties regarding its durability, and are not of fair or
3 average quality.
4

93.

Plaintiff and the Class members have performed each and every duty required

5 under the terms of the warranties, except as may have been excused or prevented by the conduct
6 of Apple or by operation of law in light of Apple’s unconscionable conduct.
7

94.

In its capacity as a supplier and warrantor, and by the conduct described herein,

8 any attempt by Apple to limit its implied warranty in a manner that would exclude coverage of
9 the defective Lightning cables is unconscionable and any such effort to disclaim, or otherwise
10 limit, liability for the defective Lightning cables is void.
11

95.

Plaintiff has provided sufficient and timely notice to Apple regarding the

12 problems he experienced with the Lightning, has given Apple a reasonable opportunity to cure its
13 failures with respect to its warranties, and, notwithstanding such notice and reasonable
14 opportunity for cure, Apple has failed to cure the defective Lightning cable.
15

96.

Any obligation by Plaintiff to provide Apple with a reasonable opportunity to cure

16 the defect is extinguished by operation of law as a result of, inter alia, Defendant’s misconduct
17 as described herein.
18

97.

Plaintiff and the Class members have been damaged as a direct and proximate

19 result of Apple’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
20

98.

As a result of Apple’s breach of implied warranty, Plaintiff and Class members

21 are entitled to revoke their acceptance of the Lightning, obtain damages and equitable relief, and
22 obtain attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2310.
23
24

99.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Express Warranty)
Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though

25 fully set forth herein.
26

100.

Plaintiff and Class members purchased Apple devices equipped with the

27 Lightning and used the Lightning cables for their ordinary and intended purpose of providing
28 consistent, reliable, and sustained power to recharge the devices’ batteries or sync data with the
19

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 devices, and entered into agreements with Apple or its agents and received uniform warranties in
2 connection with the purchase of such devices.
3

101.

The Lightning cannot perform its ordinary and represented purpose because the

4 Lightning does not provide consistent power to recharge the associated Apple devices during
5 typical and intended use and handling of the cable.
6

102.

When Defendant placed the Lightning into the stream of commerce, it knew,

7 reasonably should have known, or was obligated to understand that the intended and ordinary
8 purpose of the Lightning is to recharge and sync data for Apple devices.
9

103.

Plaintiff and the Class purchased their Apple devices with the reasonable

10 expectation that they would be able to continue using those devices by recharging with the
11 included Lightning cables without the need to purchase multiple replacement Lightning cables.
12 The advertisements Defendant disseminated constitute a warranty that the Lightning would
13 operate as advertised during its useful life, upon which Plaintiff and the Class reasonably acted.
14

104.

The Lightning is not fit for its warranted, advertised, ordinary, and intended

15 purpose of recharging and syncing Apple devices and is in fact defective, or would not pass
16 without objection in the trade or industry in terms of its poor quality and propensity to
17 deteriorate, fray, break, and fail to charge and sync the associated Apple devices. The defect has
18 manifested for Plaintiff and Class members as they cannot continue charging their Apple devices
19 using the Lightning cables supplied by Apple. The defect has also been so severe in some cases
20 that the exposed wires of the deteriorated cable poses serious safety hazards by causing sparks,
21 electric shocks, and fires.
22

105.

Defendant’s breach of warranty described above also constitutes a violation of

23 Cal. Civ. Code § 1792, et seq.
24

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)

25
26
27

106.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though

fully set forth herein.

28
20

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

107.

Defendant has benefitted from its unlawful conduct as detailed above by receiving

2 millions of dollars in revenues and profits derived from the sale of the Apple devices equipped
3 with the Lightning cables. Defendant appreciated the benefit of the receipt of such revenues and
4 profits.
5

108.

Because Defendant was unjustly enriched and has received this excessive revenue

6 at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class based on false and misleading statements regarding the
7 Lightning cable, its durability, and its ability to perform its stated functions, it would be
8 inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefits it gained from purchases by the Plaintiff and the
9 Class of the Apple devices equipped with the Lightning and/or Lightning cables.
10
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief)

11
12

109.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though

13 fully set forth herein.
14

110.

An actual controversy over which this Court has jurisdiction now exists between

15 Plaintiff, the Class, and Defendant concerning their respective rights, duties, and obligations for
16 which Plaintiff desires a declaration of rights under the applicable claims asserted herein.
17

111.

Plaintiff and Class members may be without adequate remedy at law, rendering

18 declaratory relief appropriate in that:
19

a.

20
21

damages may not adequately compensate the Class members for the
injuries suffered, nor may other claims permit such relief;

b.

the relief sought herein in terms of ceasing such practices or providing a

22

full and complete corrective disclosure may not be fully accomplished by

23

awarding damages; and

24

c.

if the conduct complained of herein is not enjoined, harm will result to

25

Class members and the general public because Defendant’s wrongful

26

conduct is continuing and persons are entitled to the direct monies taken

27

from them.

28
21

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

112.

Plaintiff requests a judicial determination and declaration of the rights of Class

2 members, and the corresponding responsibilities of Defendant.
3

113.

A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the

4 circumstances so the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties.
5

114.

Class members will be irreparably harmed unless the unlawful actions of the

6 Defendant are enjoined, because Apple will continue to advertise false and misleading statements
7 regarding the Lightning. To that end, Plaintiff requests an order compelling disclosures and/or
8 disclaimers on the outside of the Apple device boxes or advertising materials prior to making any
9 electronic device purchase. Absent injunctive relief, Defendant will continue to market,
10 distribute, and sell Apple devices and/or Lightning cables to the detriment of its customers.
11 Plaintiff has not previously asked for such injunctive relief from the Court.
12
13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the members of the Class

14 defined herein, as applicable, prays for judgment and relief as follows as appropriate for the
15 above causes of action:
16

A.

17
18

counsel to represent the Class;
B.

19
20

An order certifying this case as a class action and appointing Plaintiff and his

A temporary, preliminary, and/or permanent order for injunctive relief enjoining
Defendant from pursuing the policies, acts, and practices complained of herein;

C.

A temporary, preliminary, and/or permanent order for injunctive relief requiring

21

Defendant to undertake an informational campaign to inform members of the

22

general public as to the wrongfulness of Defendant’s practices; and

23
24
25

D.

Such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary or appropriate.
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

26
27
28
22

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF RENDELL ROMAN
I, Rendell Roman, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
1.

I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge except as to those

matters stated herein that are based upon information or belief, which I believe to be true.
2.

I am an adult citizen of the State of California. I reside in the City of Escondido,

San Diego County, California, and I am a named Plaintiff in this litigation.
3.

I purchased a new iPhone 5 with the Apple Lightning connector in or around

October 2012.
4.

To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, Defendant, Apple, Inc., is a

California corporation with its principal place of business and executive offices located in
Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
20
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this ___ day of November, 2013 at San Diego County,
California.

___________________________
Rendell Roman