Davidson et al v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 324

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting in Part and Denying in Part 291 Apple's Motion for Summary Judgment.(lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

THOMAS DAVIDSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

14
15

Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK

APPLE, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 291
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) based on

18
19

Apple’s alleged failure to disclose an alleged defect with the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus. Before

20

the Court is Apple’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 291 (“Mot.”). Having considered

21

the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS in

22

part and DENIES in part Apple’s motion for summary judgment.

23

I.

24
25

BACKGROUND
Factual Background
Apple is the designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of the iPhone smartphone. ECF

26

No. 177 at ¶¶ 21, 25-26. The iPhone utilizes a touchscreen for users to interact with the device. Id.

27

at ¶ 26. Apple released the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus on September 19, 2014. Id. at ¶ 25. The

28

1
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

iPhones have, inter alia, text messaging capability, a camera, music and internet access. Id. at ¶

2

28. Two chips are responsible for the iPhones’ touchscreen capabilities: the Cumulus chip and the

3

Meson chip. Ex. 3 at 6.1

4

1. The Alleged Defect

5

According to Plaintiffs, the iPhones suffer from an alleged material manufacturing defect
that causes the touchscreen to become unresponsive to users’ touch inputs (hereinafter, the

7

“touchscreen defect”). Id. at 13, 25. The touchscreen system is also known as the multitouch

8

system. Ex. 16 at 101:9-12. Plaintiffs claim that the touchscreen defect is the “combination of the

9

following: the bendy nature of the iPhones’ external casing, which bend during normal use; the

10

weakness of the logic board (for example, due to a lack of underfill2); and the placement of the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Meson chip at the L/3 location of the iPhones which is the location where the strain is the greatest,

12

which under normal use can result in solder ball joint fractures and cracks, rendering the

13

touchscreen inoperabl[e] at least some of the time.” Id. (footnote added). A logic board is the same

14

as a circuit board. Ex. 7 at 116:2-9. Plaintiffs explain that because the iPhones’ casing is

15

susceptible to bending, the main logic board and its attached components (i.e., the Meson chip,

16

which is bonded to the main logic board by solder balls) are also susceptible to the same bending

17

forces. Ex. 4 at ¶¶ 28, 62. These bending forces can create the solder ball joint fractures and

18

cracks, which create a poor connection between the Meson chip and the main logic board. Ex. 3 at

19

21. This poor connection results in a lack of electrical contact between the chip and the logic

20

board, thus creating a nonresponsive touchscreen. ECF No. 172 at ¶ 53.

21

Apple argues that “the solder cracks . . . allegedly responsible for the ‘Touchscreen Defect’

22

will not arise unless the phone has been repeatedly dropped on a hard surface followed by further

23

stress, such as thousands of torsion cycles.” Mot. at 13 (emphasis in original). However, Apple has

24

not conducted any studies to determine whether users of the iPhones were abusing their phones

25
26
27
28

1

Unless otherwise specified, references to exhibits are to the exhibits to the Harlan Declaration
submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Apple’s motion for summary judgment.
2
Underfill is defined as “a black liquid that is injected under the chips and then cured into a rock
hard ‘electronics superglue.’” Ex. 3 at 8.
2
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

more often or to a greater degree than users of prior iPhone models. Ex. 10 at 41:9-44:10; Ex. 14

2

at 88:17-21.

3

2. Apple’s Pre-Release Knowledge of the Touchscreen Defect

4

Plaintiffs claim that Apple knew about the touchscreen defect before releasing the iPhone 6

5

and iPhone 6 Plus on September 19, 2014. Plaintiffs argue that “Apple has long known that strain

6

on the logic board from bending of the phone causes precisely the type of harm Plaintiffs allege.”

7

Opp. at 5 (citing Ex. 9 at APL-DAVIDSON_02323103 (“On many projects where we see high

8

strain in the past, we have either solder joint breakage or in this particular case trace crack.”)).

9

Moreover, in Apple’s prototype carry program, one of the reported comments was “[d]evice bent
after usage.” Ex. 37 at APL-DAVIDSON_02383929. According to Apple’s internal product

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

testing, the iPhone 6 Plus would bend at about 65% of the force required to bend its predecessor

12

phone. Ex. 10 at 231:13-23. In addition, the iPhone 6 Plus had the lowest yield strength of any

13

iPhone model Apple had produced to date. Id. at 140:15-24.

14

3. Apple’s Post-Release Knowledge of the Touchscreen Defect

15

Plaintiffs also claim that Apple knew of the touchscreen defect after the iPhones’ release.

16

Internal Apple emails revealed that Apple employees were aware of news stories and customer

17

complaints about the iPhone 6 Plus bending. Ex. 5 at APL-DAVIDSON_02430568. Within the

18

first two weeks of the iPhones’ launch, Apple began to hear of issues from customers complaining

19

about touch responsiveness. Ex. 15 at 114:12-15. It was during these few weeks after launch that

20

Apple realized customers were experiencing multitouch functionality issues at a higher rate than

21

predecessor models of iPhones. Ex. 14 at 79:5-80:15. Worldwide, 22 days from the first customer

22

shipment of the iPhones, 5,793 iPhones had been returned for “Display – Image Quality”

23

complaints; 3,221 iPhones had been returned for “Display – Multi-touch” issues; and 2,304

24

iPhones had been returned for “Physical Damage – Enclosure” issues. Opp. at 7; Ex. 20 at APL-

25

DAVIDSON_02397850. Furthermore, Plaintiffs point to internal 2015 Apple emails discussing a

26

cracked trace underneath the Meson chip. Ex. 36 at APL-DAVIDSON_02333326.

27
28

Moreover, Apple’s original risk assessment projections for its iPhones’ enclosure bending
3
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

was changed from 200 to 600 defective parts per million to 3,700 defective parts per million for

2

the iPhone 6 and 8,000 defective parts per million for the iPhones 6 Plus. Ex. 10 at 231:14-24; Ex.

3

13 at APL-DAVIDSON_00056491. Additionally, after the iPhones were released, Apple

4

conducted more bend testing, which identified the area around the SIM card tray (near to where

5

the Meson chip is located in the phone) as being the weakest part of the enclosure. Ex. 10 at

6

182:19-184:7. Apple also investigated changing the phone casing material to 7K aluminum, which

7

would result in a reduction in deformation when the phone was subjected to a 95 kg load. Ex. 1 at

8

227:25-228:22; Ex. 12 at APL-DAVIDSON_02430365. However, Apple never changed the

9

casing material for the iPhones. Ex. 14 at 52:8-22.
In May or June of 2015, Apple’s quality team concluded that the root cause of the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

touchscreen issues was trace cracks on the circuit board at the location where the Meson chip was

12

attached. Ex. 10 at 102:19-25. Apple changed the shape of the circuit board traces to try and fix

13

the touchscreen issues, but despite the fix, the touchscreen failure rates were still high compared to

14

previous iPhone models. Id. at 103:14-20. At the time, Apple emails show an acknowledgement

15

that the “trace won’t crack [without] any external force applied.” Ex. 21 at APL-

16

DAVIDSON_02360390. In fact, even after the fix, Apple saw an increase in the failure rate of the

17

touchscreens on the iPhone 6 Plus. Ex. 14 at 210:3-17.

18

On June 22, 2015, Apple’s senior manager of iPhone quality stated in an email that

19

“[e]nclosure bending likely contributed to the stress causing trace-crack in addition to mechanical

20

shock (drop) events, based on field data correlation, case not mining, and physical units

21

measurement.” Ex. 23 at APL-DAVIDSON_02367881.

22

4. Multi-Touch Repair Program

23

On November 18, 2016, Apple announced a customer service program related to the

24

touchscreen defect called the “Multi-Touch Repair Program.” ECF No. 177 at ¶ 119. Prior to the

25

Multi-Touch Repair Program, Apple charged approximately $349 for a refurbished iPhone when a

26

consumer complained of the touchscreen defect outside of Apple’s warranty. ECF No. 172 at ¶

27

119. Through Apple’s Multi-Touch Repair Program, Apple has offered to repair consumers’

28

4
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

devices for $149 if the consumers’ iPhone is otherwise working, and the screen is not broken. Id.

2

Through the program, Apple also offers to reimburse consumers for amounts previously paid over

3

$149. Id. at ¶ 120.

4

5. The Plaintiffs

5

Each named Plaintiff experienced the touchscreen defect after purchasing their iPhone.

6

Below is a chart summarizing the relevant details of the six named Plaintiffs whose claims are at

7

issue in the instant motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 172 at ¶¶ 10, 12, 14-15, 18, 19.

8

Name

State

Date of Purchase

Alleged Date of Onset
of Defect

10

Justin Bauer

Colorado

March 11, 2015

July 2015

11

John Borzymowski

Florida

September 19, 2014

February 2016

12

Taylor Brown

Texas

November 11, 2014

January 2016

13

William Bon

Washington

January 10, 2015

August 2016

14

Matt Muilenberg

Washington

February 28, 2015

May 2016

15

Eric Siegal

Illinois

December 18, 2015

September 2016

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

16

Procedural History

17

On August 27, 2016, Plaintiffs Thomas Davison, Jun Bai, and Todd Cleary filed a putative

18

class action complaint against Apple that alleged causes of action under (1) California’s Consumer

19

Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750; (2) Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus. & Prof. Code

20

§ 17200; (3) False Advertisement Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500; (4) common

21

law fraud; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) breach of implied warranty;

22

(8) violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (“Magnusson-Moss Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301;

23

and (9) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”), Cal. Civ.

24

Code § 17290. See ECF No. 1.

25

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint that added

26

several named Plaintiffs and added causes of action under the consumer fraud statutes of Illinois,

27

New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, New York, and Washington. See

28

5
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

ECF No. 20. On December 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint

2

(“SACC”), which added a Utah Plaintiff and a cause of action under Utah’s consumer fraud

3

statute. Plaintiffs sought to represent a Nationwide Class of “[a]ll persons or entities in the United

4

States that purchased an Apple iPhone 6 or 6 Plus.” Alternatively, Plaintiffs sought to represent

5

state sub-classes. Id.

6

Given the breadth of the Plaintiffs’ action, the Court ordered the parties at the November

7

30, 2016 initial case management conference to each select 5 causes of action—for a total of 10

8

causes of action—to litigate through summary judgment. See ECF No. 44. On December 5, 2016,

9

the parties selected (1) New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1; (2)
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.201; (3)

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”), Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010; (4) Illinois

12

Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ICFDTPA”), Ill. Comp. Stat ¶ 505; (5)

13

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“TDTPA”), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code ¶ 17.41; (6) Colorado

14

Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105; (7) common law fraud; (8)

15

breach of express warranty; (9) breach of implied warranty; (10) Magnusson-Moss Act. See ECF

16

No. 44, at 1-2. The parties did not select any California statutory claims. See id.

17

On January 6, 2017, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the SACC. ECF No. 54. On March

18

14, 2017, the Court dismissed all 10 of the selected claims with leave to amend. See ECF No. 84;

19

Davidson v. Apple, Inc., 2017 WL 976048 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017) (“Davidson I”). The Court

20

found that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged Article III standing to bring fraud claims. Id. at *5.

21

However, the Court concluded Plaintiffs had not adequately alleged standing to seek an injunction.

22

Id. at *6-7. The Court thus granted Apple’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend to the extent

23

that Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief.

24

The Court next dismissed Plaintiffs’ fraud claims because Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule

25

9(b)’s heightened pleading requirements. First, Plaintiffs’ fraud claims premised on an affirmative

26

misrepresentation theory were not pleaded with sufficient particularity because Plaintiffs did not

27

allege any affirmative statement to which Plaintiffs were exposed or reviewed. Id. at *8. Second,

28

6
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

with regards to Plaintiffs’ claims premised on a fraudulent omission theory, the Court held that

2

Plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity any fraud claim premised on fraudulent omissions

3

because Plaintiffs had failed to plead “that they reviewed or were exposed to any information,

4

advertisements, labeling, or packaging by Defendant,” and thus Plaintiffs had failed to plead that

5

they encountered or were exposed to any material through which Apple could have made a

6

fraudulent omission. Id. Accordingly, the Court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’

7

claims for fraud under the NJCFA, FDUTPA, WCPA, ICFDTPA, TDTPA, CCPA, and common

8

law. Id. at *10.

9

Finally, the Court applied California law to Plaintiffs’ warranty claims because the parties
briefed only California law. Id. The Court held that, with regards to Plaintiffs’ breach of express

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

warranty claim, Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim because Plaintiffs alleged only a defect in the

12

iPhone’s design, and Apple’s express warranty did not cover defects in design. Id. Moreover, the

13

Court held that all but two Plaintiffs had failed to allege that the touchscreen defect manifested

14

within Apple’s one-year warranty period. Id. at *12. The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that

15

Apple’s one-year duration provision was unconscionable. Id. The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’

16

limited warranty claim under California law because Apple had properly disclaimed limited

17

warranties and the disclaimer was not unconscionable. Id. The Court also dismissed Plaintiffs’

18

Magnusson-Moss Act claim, which was dependent on Plaintiffs’ other warranty claims. Id.

19

Thus, the Court dismissed all 10 selected causes of action with leave to amend and ordered

20

the parties to specify which states’ law applied to the common law causes of action. Id. On March

21

21, 2017, in response to this Court’s order, Plaintiffs elected to litigate their common law breach

22

of warranty claims under Illinois law and Apple elected to litigate its common law fraud claim

23

under Pennsylvania law. ECF No. 85.

24

On April 4, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Class Action Complaint (“TACC”).

25

ECF No. 86. Plaintiffs alleged in the TACC that, prior to their iPhone purchases, Plaintiffs viewed

26

a variety of information from Apple, such as Apple’s press releases about the iPhone, Apple’s

27

keynote address about the iPhone, and television commercials about the iPhone. See id. at ¶¶ 8-20.

28

7
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Immediately after their purchase—and within the time window for returning their iPhone free of

2

charge—Plaintiffs reviewed the iPhone box and information within the box. See id. Further, either

3

prior to their purchase or within the time window in which they could have returned their iPhones

4

free of charge, all Plaintiffs viewed Apple’s September 25, 2014 “BendGate” statement. See id.

5

On April 18, 2017, Apple moved to dismiss the TACC. See ECF No. 87.

6

On July 25, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to dismiss.

7

See ECF No. 103; Davidson v. Apple, Inc., 2017 WL 3149305 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017)

8

(“Davidson II”). To start, the Court found that some Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive

9

relief enjoining Apple’s allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions about the iPhones
because they did not intend to buy a new phone or participate in Apple’s Multi-Touch Repair

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Program. Id. at *7-8. Conversely, other Plaintiffs did have standing to seek injunctive relief

12

because they intended to participate in the Multi-Touch Repair Program, or were at least willing to

13

consider doing so. Id. at *8-9.

14

The Court then turned to Plaintiffs’ fraud claims. First, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’

15

fraud claims based on affirmative misrepresentations “because Plaintiffs have failed to identify an

16

actionable misrepresentation in the September 25, 2014 statement—and because this statement is

17

the only statement that forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ affirmative misrepresentation claims.” Id. at

18

*13. Second, the Court declined to dismiss Plaintiffs’ fraud claims based on an omission theory

19

because “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the information about the iPhone to which Plaintiffs

20

were exposed either prior to their purchase or immediately after their purchase and within the time

21

window in which they could have returned their iPhone for a full refund.” Id. at *14. The Court

22

also found that Plaintiffs had adequately alleged that Apple knew of the touchscreen defect at the

23

time of the Plaintiffs’ purchases. See id. at *14-15.

24

The Court next dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims under the NJCFA and Pennsylvania common

25

law fraud with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ NJCFA claim failed because the only New Jersey Plaintiff

26

experienced the touchscreen defect after the expiration of Apple’s one year limited warranty

27

period, and New Jersey law provides that “[a] defendant cannot be found to have violated the CFA

28

8
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

when it provided a part—alleged to be substandard—that outperforms the warranty provided.”

2

Perkins v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 890 A.2d 997, 1004 (N.J. App. Div. 2006). The Court

3

dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for common law fraud under Pennsylvania because it was barred by the

4

economic loss doctrine, which bars a plaintiff “from recovering in tort economic losses to which

5

their entitlement flows only from a contract.” Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661, 670

6

(3d Cir. 2002).
Finally, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ breach of express and implied warranty claims

7
8

under Illinois law with prejudice. After finding that the limited warranty was not unconscionable,

9

the Court dismissed the breach of express warranty claim because the limited warranty excluded
design defects, and Plaintiffs alleged only a design defect. Davidson II, 2017 WL 3149305 at *24.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Similarly, the Court dismissed the breach of implied warranty claim because the limited warranty

12

was not unconscionable and expressly disclaimed an implied warranty. Id. at *26. The Court also

13

dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim under California’s Magnusson-Moss Act because the parties did not

14

dispute that the claim rose or fell with Plaintiffs’ express and implied warranty claims under state

15

law. Id.
Thus, five causes of action (all premised on a fraudulent omissions theory) survived

16
17

Apple’s motion to dismiss the TACC: (1) a Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) claim;

18

(2) a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) claim; (3) an Illinois

19

Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ICFDTPA”) claim; (4) Texas Deceptive

20

Trade Practices Act (“TDTPA”) claim; and (5) a Washington Consumer Protection Act

21

(“WCPA”) claim. These claims are now at issue in the instant motion for summary judgment.

22

On December 21, 2017, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to file a Fourth Amended

23

Class Action Complaint (“FACC”). ECF No. 169. The FACC was materially identical to the Third

24

Amended Class Complaint save for the substitution of Plaintiff Eric Siegal, an Illinois resident, for

25

Adam Benelhachem, the previous Illinois Plaintiff. See FACC. On January 3, 2018, Plaintiffs filed

26

the FACC. ECF No. 172. On January 17, 2018, Apple filed its Answer to the FACC. ECF No.

27

177.

28

9
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On December 21, 2018, Apple filed the instant motion for summary judgment. ECF No.

1
2

291. On January 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Apple’s motion for summary

3

judgment. ECF No. 302 (“Opp.”). On February 1, 2019, Apple filed its reply. ECF No. 305

4

(“Reply”).

5

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits show that

6
7

there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant is entitled to judgment as

8

a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of

9

the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material
fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

nonmoving party. See id.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those

12
13

portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue

14

of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party meets

15

its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or

16

discovery, “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

56(e). If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving party is entitled to

18

judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323.

19

At the summary judgment stage, the Court must view the evidence in the light most

20

favorable to the nonmoving party: if evidence produced by the moving party conflicts with

21

evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the judge must assume the truth of the evidence set

22

forth by the nonmoving party with respect to that fact. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152,

23

1158 (9th Cir. 1999).

24

III.

25

DISCUSSION
At issue in the instant motion for summary judgment are: (1) a Colorado Consumer

26

Protection Act (“CCPA”) claim; (2) a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

27

(“FDUTPA”) claim; (3) a Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) claim; (4) an Illinois

28

10
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ICFDTPA”) claim; and (5) a Texas

2

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“TDTPA”) claim. Apple also challenges whether Plaintiffs John

3

Borzymowski (Florida) and Eric Siegal (Illinois) can state a claim for damages under the

4

FDUTPA and ICFDTPA, respectively. Moreover, Apple also challenges Plaintiffs Justin Bauer

5

(Colorado), Taylor Brown (Texas), and Eric Siegal’s (Illinois) claims for injunctive relief. The

6

Court addresses each issue in turn.

7
8
9

Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) Claim
To state a claim under the CCPA, “a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant engaged in
an unfair or deceptive trade practice; (2) that the challenged practice occurred in the course of
defendant’s business, vocation, or occupation; (3) that it significantly impacts the public as actual

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

or potential consumers of the defendant’s goods, services, or property; (4) that the plaintiff

12

suffered injury in fact to a legally protected interest; and (5) that the challenged practice caused the

13

Plaintiff’s injury.” Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142,

14

146-47 (Colo. 2003). A defendant engages in a deceptive trade practice when the defendant

15

“[f]ails to disclose material information concerning goods, services, or property which information

16

was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such failure to disclose such information was

17

intended to induce the consumer to enter a transaction.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1)(u).

18

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged touchscreen defect does

19

not exist and that if it did exist, Apple did not know of its existence; that Colorado Plaintiff Justin

20

Bauer did not review the iPhone 6 Plus box before his iPhone 6 Plus purchase; and that Apple

21

disclosed to consumers that dropping the iPhone would potentially damage the phone. Thus,

22

Apple alleges that Apple did not engage in an unfair or deceptive trade practice, that the alleged

23

practice did not impact the public, that Plaintiff Bauer suffered no injury, and that the alleged

24

practice did not cause Plaintiff Bauer’s injury.

25

In its motion, Apple presents evidence challenging the existence of the alleged touchscreen

26

defect in the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 Plus. For example, prior to launch, Apple subjected the

27

iPhone 6 and 6 Plus to sit testing, which showed that extensive repetitive bending of the enclosure

28

11
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

is insufficient to cause the alleged touchscreen defect. ECF No. 286-1 at ¶ 42. According to

2

Apple’s expert Dr. Reinhold Dauskardt, who reviewed Apple’s internal testing protocols,

3

“Apple’s rigorous testing employed very considerable loads” that replicate real-world conditions.

4

Id. at ¶ 45. Apple also subjected the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus to squeeze and pressure tests, which

5

applied “incremental loads to different locations on the front and rear sides” of the iPhones. Id. at

6

¶ 56. The squeeze and pressure tests are designed to cause “localized deformation of the

7

[iPhones’] aluminum enclosure.” Id. None of the squeeze and pressure tests revealed the alleged

8

touchscreen defect. Id. at ¶ 61. Additionally, Apple subjected the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus to torsion

9

tests, which showed that “repetitively twisting the [iPhones] is not sufficient to cause the alleged”
touchscreen defect. Id. at ¶ 64. The torsion tests are designed to test whether the logic board and

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

its components (such as the Meson chip) would be impacted by strain created by the repetitive

12

twisting. Id. Moreover, Apple’s internal emails about its testing show that bending the enclosure

13

of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus resulted in “no functional impact” and “minimal cosmetic impact.”

14

Cheung Decl., Ex. K at APL-DAVIDSON_02377954. Post-release of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus,

15

Apple conducted additional torsion testing while directly measuring logic board strain at the

16

Meson chip location. Cheung Decl., Ex. L at APL-DAVIDSON_02309387. Plaintiffs’ expert

17

Charles Curley admitted the strain measurements were within industry standard limits, Cheung

18

Decl., Ex. G at 206:20-22, which Apple claims confirms that “enclosure bending is not the root

19

cause of the alleged touchscreen issue,” Mot. at 9.

20

Nonetheless, the Court finds that summary judgment is not appropriate because, at a

21

minimum, Plaintiffs have shown that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the

22

alleged touchscreen defect exists, whether Apple had knowledge of its existence, and whether

23

Apple engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice by failing to disclose it. For instance,

24

Apple’s senior manager of iPhone quality Jason Fu admitted in an internal email: “[e]nclosure

25

bending likely contributed to the stress causing trace-crack [near the Meson chip].” Ex. 23 at APL-

26

DAVIDSON_02367880. In addition, as part of Apple’s “Prototype Carry Program,” an Apple

27

slide deck detailing issues encountered as part of the prototype carry program lists “[d]evice bent

28

12
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

after usage” as a problem classified as “[h]igh [r]isk.” Ex. 37 at APL-DAVIDSON_02383929.

2

Moreover, another Apple slide deck states that the “display flickering and multi-touch field

3

failures have been root caused to Meson chip solder cracking.” Ex. 34 at APL-

4

DAVIDSON_02358601. Additionally, an internal Apple email by employee Kevin Lo states that

5

“[t]here is an ongoing quality issue . . . that we are looking to combat. It is related to Meson Chip

6

solder cracking.” Ex. 33 at APL-DAVIDSON_02394761. Thus, the evidence shows that Apple

7

may have known about the alleged touchscreen defect and omitted it from any of the commercials,

8

print advertisements, and online advertisements reviewed by Plaintiff Bauer, who discussed these

9

advertisements as part of his deposition testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 28 at 120:9-15 (“Q. And did the

10

commercials impact you to go in and buy the phone? A. To the extent that it was informational. I

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

knew [Apple] had a bigger phone. Q. Is that when you first learned that they had a bigger phone?

12

A. Yeah. Yeah.”). Plaintiff Bauer was only informed of the iPhone bending issue from the news.

13

Id. at 119:13-19 (“Q. When you talked about the materials that you had read or seen before you

14

purchased your [iPhone] 6 Plus, you talked about commercials, print ads, online ads and this

15

statement about the bending issue in the news. Do you recall that? A. Yes.”).

16

As aforementioned, the CCPA requires a showing that “the defendant engaged in an unfair

17

or deceptive trade practice.” Rhino Linings, 62 P.3d at 146. In light of the internal Apple

18

communications and slide decks describing the alleged touchscreen defect and associating it with

19

enclosure bending despite Apple’s internal testing of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, which indicate that

20

enclosure bending is not a cause of the alleged touchscreen defect, Plaintiffs have sufficiently

21

demonstrated that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Apple engaged in an

22

unfair or deceptive trade practice by withholding information about the alleged touchscreen defect.

23

Apple disputes the timing of its knowledge of the alleged touchscreen defect. However, that

24

dispute underscores that there are material factual disputes that preclude summary judgment.

25

Furthermore, Apple argues that Apple’s alleged omission on the iPhone box did not affect

26

Plaintiff Bauer’s purchase decision, and thus there is no causal nexus between the alleged

27

deceptive practice and any damages Plaintiff Bauer suffered. Mot. at 20. However, Plaintiff Bauer

28

13
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4

testified that he relied upon Apple’s advertisements separate from the iPhone box.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, summary judgment is DENIED as to the CCPA claim.
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) Claim
To state a claim under the FDUTPA, there are three elements: “(1) a deceptive act or unfair

5

practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.” Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business

6

Bureau of Palm Beach Cty., Inc., 169 So.3d 164, 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Kertesz

7

v. Net Transactions, Ltd., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2009)). A deceptive act occurs “if

8

there is a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting

9

reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment.” PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt.,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Inc., 842 So.2d 773, 777 (Fla. 2003).
Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged touchscreen defect does

12

not exist and that if it did exist, Apple did not know of its existence; that Florida Plaintiff John

13

Borzymowski did not review the iPhone 6 Plus box before his iPhone 6 Plus purchase; and that

14

Apple disclosed to consumers that dropping the iPhone would potentially damage the phone.

15

Thus, Apple alleges that Apple did not engage in a deceptive act or unfair practice, that Plaintiff

16

Borzymowski suffered no injury, and that the alleged practice did not cause Plaintiff

17

Borzymowski’s injury.

18

As discussed above, Apple has cited evidence of its internal testing, both pre-release and

19

post-release of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, which do not show enclosure bending as a root cause of

20

the alleged touchscreen defect. However, the Court finds that summary judgment is not

21

appropriate because, at a minimum, Plaintiffs have shown that there is a genuine issue of material

22

fact as to whether the alleged touchscreen defect exists, whether Apple had knowledge of its

23

existence, and whether Apple engaged in a deceptive act or unfair practice by failing to disclose it.

24

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have cited documents showing that Apple may have known about

25

the alleged touchscreen defect and concealed it from product advertising. Specifically, Plaintiffs

26

have cited Apple employee emails and Apple slide decks confirming Apple’s knowledge of a

27

quality issue related to solder cracking near the Meson chip, and that the iPhone enclosure bending

28

14
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

likely contributed to the issue. See, e.g., Ex. 23 at APL-DAVIDSON_02367880 (“Enclosure

2

bending likely contributed to the stress causing trace-crack [near the Meson chip] . . . .”).
Moreover, Plaintiff Borzymowski was exposed to Apple’s keynote address unveiling the

3
4

iPhones and Apple’s website advertising the iPhones, but neither mentioned the alleged

5

touchscreen defect. See Ex. 30 at 315:10-16 (“Q. If the information on Apple’s website, the day of

6

the keynote address in September 2014, related to the iPhone 6 Plus had said that the phone could

7

suffer from the [touchscreen defect], would you still have purchased the phone? . . . . The Witness:

8

No.”).
As aforementioned, the FDUTPA requires “a deceptive act or unfair practice.” Caribbean

9

Cruise Line, Inc., 169 So.3d at 167. Plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

whether Apple committed a deceptive act or unfair practice under the FDUTPA by concealing

12

Apple’s alleged knowledge of the alleged touchscreen defect from consumers.
Furthermore, Apple argues that Apple’s alleged omission on the iPhone box did not affect

13
14

Plaintiff Borzymowski’s purchase decision, and thus there is no causal nexus between the

15

deceptive practice and any damages Plaintiff Borzymowski suffered. Mot. at 20. However,

16

Plaintiff Borzymowski testified that he relied upon Apple’s September 2014 keynote address and

17

Apple’s website separate from the iPhone box.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, summary judgment is DENIED as to the FDUTPA

18
19
20
21

claim.
Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) Claim
To state a claim under the WCPA, a “plaintiff must prove (1) an unfair or deceptive act or

22

practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) affecting the public interest, (4) injury to a

23

person’s business or property, and (5) causation.” Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 166

24

Wash.2d 27, 37 (2009). Causation under the WCPA “for omission of material facts includes a

25

rebuttal presumption of reliance.” Deegan v. Windermere Real Estate/center-Isle, Inc., 197 Wash.

26

App. 875, 890 (2017).

27
28

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged touchscreen defect does
15
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

not exist and that if it did exist, Apple did not know of its existence; that Washington Plaintiffs

2

William Bon and Matt Muilenberg did not review the iPhone boxes before their iPhone purchases;

3

and that Apple disclosed to consumers that dropping the iPhone would potentially damage the

4

phone. Thus, Apple alleges that Apple did not engage in an unfair or deceptive act or practice, that

5

the alleged practice did not impact the public, that Plaintiffs Bon and Muilenberg suffered no

6

injury, and that the alleged practice did not cause Plaintiffs Bon and Muilenberg injury.

7

As discussed above, Apple has cited evidence of its internal testing, both pre-release and

8

post-release of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, which do not show enclosure bending as a root cause of

9

the alleged touchscreen defect. However, the Court finds that summary judgment is not
appropriate because, at a minimum, Plaintiffs have shown that there is a genuine issue of material

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

fact as to whether the alleged touchscreen defect exists, whether Apple had knowledge of its

12

existence, and whether Apple engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice by failing to

13

disclose it. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have cited documents showing that Apple may have

14

known about the alleged touchscreen defect and concealed it from product advertising.

15

Specifically, Plaintiffs have cited Apple employee emails and Apple slide decks confirming

16

Apple’s knowledge of a quality issue related to solder cracking near the Meson chip, and that the

17

iPhone enclosure bending likely contributed to the issue. See, e.g., Ex. 23 at APL-

18

DAVIDSON_02367880 (“Enclosure bending likely contributed to the stress causing trace-crack

19

[near the Meson chip] . . . .”).

20

Nevertheless, in Apple’s advertising seen by Plaintiffs Bon and Muilenberg, Apple did not

21

mention the alleged touchscreen defect. Plaintiff Bon watched the Apple keynote about the

22

iPhones, which made no mention of any alleged touchscreen defect. See Ex. 29 at 108:21-109:5

23

(“Q. Looking back in time, is there anything that you recall in the keynote that you think relates to

24

the issues you’ve experienced with your phone? A. No, I don’t – I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t –

25

I definitely don’t remember there being any sort of mention of – you know, especially at that time,

26

like, anything about bending or anything about there could be issues because it’s a bigger

27

phone.”). Plaintiff Muilenberg also watched the Apple keynote as well as various commercials,

28

16
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

which did not disclose the alleged touchscreen defect. See Ex. 32 at 251:8-13 (“Q. And so when

2

you are referring to the commercials, what about the commercials made any representations about

3

the touchscreen? A. Well, they show the touchscreen scrolling, they show you opening apps, they

4

show interaction through the device.”).

5

As aforementioned, one of the requirements of a claim under the WCPA is “an unfair or

6

deceptive act or practice.” Panag, 166 Wash.2d at 37. Thus, Plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue

7

of material fact as to whether Apple committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the

8

WCPA by concealing Apple’s alleged knowledge of the alleged touchscreen defect from

9

consumers.
Furthermore, Apple argues that Apple’s alleged omission on the iPhone box did not affect

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs Bon and Muilenberg’s purchase decision, and thus there is no causal nexus between the

12

unfair or deceptive act or practice and any damages Plaintiffs Bon and Muilenberg suffered. Mot.

13

at 20. However, Plaintiff Bon testified that he relied upon Apple’s September 2014 keynote

14

address separate from the iPhone box, and Plaintiff Muilenberg testified that he also relied upon

15

Apple’s September 2014 keynote address and various commercials separate from the iPhone box.

16

Thus, for the reasons stated above, summary judgment is DENIED as to the WCPA claim.

17

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ICFDTPA”) Claim

18

To state a claim under the ICFDTPA, “a plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant’s

19

deception; (2) the defendant intended [that] the plaintiff rely on that deception; (3) the deception

20

occurred in commerce; (4) the plaintiff suffered actual damage; and (5) the deception proximately

21

caused the damage.” Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill.2d 100, 180 (2005). “An

22

omission or concealment of a material fact in the conduct of trade or commerce constitutes

23

consumer fraud.” Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 Ill.2d 482, 504 (1996).

24

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged touchscreen defect does

25

not exist and that if it did exist, Apple did not know of its existence; that Illinois Plaintiff Eric

26

Siegal did not review the iPhone 6 Plus box before his iPhone 6 Plus purchase; and that Apple

27

disclosed to consumers that dropping the iPhone would potentially damage the phone. Apple also

28

17
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

alleges that Apple did not engage in deception, that Plaintiff Siegal suffered no injury, and that the

2

alleged deception did not cause Plaintiff Siegal’s injury.
The Court agrees with Apple that Plaintiff Siegal has not suffered actual damage, which is

3

an element of an ICFDTPA claim. In the FACC, Plaintiff Siegal alleges that he paid $150 to

5

replace his defective iPhone 6 Plus with another iPhone 6 Plus on September 26, 2016. FACC at ¶

6

10. Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiff Siegal suffered actual damage by having to pay $150 to replace

7

his defective iPhone 6 Plus. Opp. at 12, 25. Similarly, in his deposition, Plaintiff Siegal testified

8

that after his phone manifested the alleged touchscreen defect, he paid $150 for a replacement

9

phone. Ex. 39 at 36:25-37:2 (“Q. So you told me that you obtained a replacement phone for your

10

iPhone 6 Plus the first time it manifested the touch screen issue, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you told

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

me that you paid Verizon $150, right? A. Yes”).
However, the FACC’s allegation and Plaintiff Siegel’s deposition testimony that he paid

12
13

$150 for a replacement iPhone 6 Plus is contradicted by third-party Verizon’s records, which

14

indicate that Plaintiff Siegal was not charged anything for his replacement iPhone 6 Plus.

15

Specifically, Plaintiffs’ FACC alleged that on September 26, 2016, Plaintiff Siegal paid $150 to a

16

Verizon store to obtain a replacement for his defective iPhone 6 Plus. FACC at ¶ 10. However,

17

Verizon’s records from September 26, 2016 show a $0.00 charge for the replacement iPhone 6

18

Plus that Plaintiff Siegal received. Cheung Decl., Ex. S at APL-DAVIDSON_02434328

19

(“TOTAL: $0.00 ORDER”).
Verizon’s records also show that on December 13, 2017—a week before Plaintiff Siegal’s

20
21

deposition on December 20, 2017—Plaintiff Siegal contacted Verizon asking “to know what the

22

bill bal[ance] was during that time bec[ause] he thought he was billed for the warranty

23

replacement.” Id. at APL-DAVIDSON_02434312. Verizon advised him that there was “no

24

charge.” Id.

25

Quite tellingly, Plaintiffs do not dispute the accuracy of Verizon’s records. Rather,

26

Plaintiffs argue that “Apple is free to cross-examine [Plaintiff Siegal] on that point at trial.” Opp.

27

at 25.

28

18
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Thus, Plaintiff Siegal is unable to produce anything but his own self-serving statements

2

that he was billed $150 for his replacement iPhone 6 Plus, whereas third-party Verizon records

3

indicate that Plaintiff Siegal was not billed anything for his replacement iPhone 6 Plus. Under

4

Ninth Circuit precedent, courts have “refused to find a genuine issue [of material fact] where the

5

only evidence presented is uncorroborated and self-serving testimony.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island

6

Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

7

In Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of

8

summary judgment in an Americans with Disabilities Act case. 90 F.3d 1477, 1482 (9th Cir.

9

1996). In Kennedy, the plaintiff asserted that the ailment from which she suffered did not render
her totally disabled. Id. at 1481. In support, the plaintiff relied upon her own deposition testimony

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that she was not totally disabled. Id. However, the plaintiff’s testimony was belied by her treating

12

physician’s deposition testimony that she was totally disabled, as well as her own admissions on

13

her disability benefit claim forms. Id. Thus, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff’s

14

“uncorroborated and self-serving” deposition testimony was not enough to raise a genuine issue of

15

material fact. Id. Here, there is a similar situation in which Plaintiff Siegal’s deposition testimony

16

is uncorroborated, self-serving, and entirely contradicted by Verizon’s records showing that

17

Plaintiff Siegal paid nothing for the replacement iPhone 6 Plus. Thus, Plaintiff Siegal’s deposition

18

testimony is not enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered any

19

damage.

20

Moreover, in Thornhill Pub’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Electronics Corp., the Ninth Circuit

21

rejected a plaintiff’s affidavits that were conclusory and speculative, and held that the affidavits

22

were not enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact. 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). The

23

Thornhill plaintiff needed to prove that the defendant’s acts substantially affected interstate

24

commerce, so the Thornhill plaintiff, in an effort to avoid summary judgment, submitted an

25

affidavit stating that “it was common knowledge throughout the directory industry that local

26

dealers in many instances received advertising subsidies from national manufacturers.” Id. The

27

Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to avoid summary judgment and wrote that “[i]f,

28

19
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

indeed, evidence was available to underpin (the) conclusory statement, Rule 56 required (the party

2

opposing summary judgment) to come forward with it.” Id. (quoting Donnelly v. Guion, 467 F.2d

3

290, 293 (2d Cir. 1972)). Here, Plaintiff Siegal has not come forward with any support for his

4

statement that he paid $150 for his replacement iPhone 6 Plus. In fact, despite an effort to come up

5

with evidence of his purported $150 payment by contacting Verizon, Verizon advised Plaintiff

6

Siegal that he paid nothing for the replacement iPhone 6 Plus. Cheung Decl., Ex. S at APL-

7

DAVIDSON_02434312.

8

Aside from the replacement iPhone 6 Plus, Plaintiff Siegal does not and cannot claim that
he was damaged by paying for his iPhone 6 Plus in the first instance. During his deposition,

10

Plaintiff Siegal conceded that he did not pay for his iPhone 6 Plus; rather, his employer did.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Cheung Decl., Ex. A at 54:24-55:1 (“Q. Did your company pay for the phone or did you pay for

12

the phone? A. The company paid for the phone.”). Thus, Plaintiff Siegal could not have been

13

harmed at the point of sale of the iPhone 6 Plus because he was not the one who purchased it.

14

As aforementioned, one of the required elements of an ICFDTPA claim is actual damage

15

to the Plaintiff. Avery, 216 Ill.2d at 180. Plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of material

16

fact as to whether Plaintiff Siegal suffered actual damage resulting from Apple’s alleged omission

17

of the touchscreen defect because Plaintiff Siegal concedes that he paid nothing for his iPhone 6

18

Plus and Verizon’s records show that Plaintiff Siegal paid nothing for his replacement iPhone 6

19

Plus. Thus, Apple’s motion for summary judgment as to the ICFDTPA claim is GRANTED.

20
21

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“TDTPA”) Claim
To state a nondisclosure claim under the TDTPA, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) the defendant

22

knew information regarding the goods or services, (2) the information was not disclosed, (3) there

23

was an intent to induce the consumer to enter into the transaction through the failure to disclose,

24

and (4) the consumer would not have entered into the transaction had the information been

25

disclosed.” Patterson v. McMickle, 191 S.W.3d 819, 827 (Tex. App. 2006).

26
27
28

Apple moves for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged touchscreen defect does
not exist and that if it did exist, Apple did not know of its existence; that Texas Plaintiff Taylor
20
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Brown did not review the iPhone 6 Plus box before his iPhone 6 Plus purchase; and that Apple

2

disclosed to consumers that dropping the iPhone would potentially damage the phone. Also, Apple

3

alleges that Apple did not have any information to disclose regarding the alleged touchscreen

4

defect, that Plaintiff Brown suffered no injury, and that Plaintiff Brown’s decision to purchase the

5

iPhone 6 Plus was independent of any omission of information about the alleged touchscreen

6

defect by Apple.
The Court agrees with Apple that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy prong (4) of a TDTPA

8

claim because Plaintiffs have failed to show that Plaintiff Brown would not have purchased his

9

iPhone 6 Plus had the alleged touchscreen defect been disclosed. Plaintiff Brown’s deposition

10

testimony fails to mention what Plaintiff Brown would have done had the omitted information

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

been disclosed. See generally Ex. 31. In fact, Exhibit 31 is the only document Plaintiffs cite that

12

relates directly to Plaintiff Brown’s claims. But Exhibit 31 merely excerpts 5 pages of Plaintiff

13

Brown’s deposition testimony in which the only topic Plaintiff Brown discusses are statements

14

from Apple that he reviewed prior to his iPhone 6 Plus purchase. See, e.g., id. at 242:3-7 (“Q. So

15

your testimony now is that you reviewed the September 9, 2014 keynote delivered by Tim Cook

16

before you purchased the iPhone 6 Plus? A. Yes”); id. at 244:6-8 (“Q. You reviewed the press

17

release issued by Apple? A. That’s fair to say, yes.”). Again, other than Exhibit 31, Plaintiffs fail

18

to cite any other document, including a declaration or affidavit from Plaintiff Brown. Thus,

19

Plaintiffs fail to show that Plaintiff Brown would not have purchased his iPhone 6 Plus if the

20

alleged touchscreen defect had been disclosed.

21

Courts have dismissed TDTPA causes of action for failure to show that the consumer

22

would not have entered into the disputed transaction had the omitted information been disclosed.

23

For instance, in Corcoran v. CVS Health Corp., 169 F. Supp. 3d 970, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2016), the

24

court dismissed a TDTPA omission claim because the complaint failed “to allege that Plaintiff

25

would not have entered into the transactions absent the failure to disclose.” Cf. Webb v.

26

UnumProvident Corp., 507 F. Supp. 2d 668, 680 (W.D. Tex. 2005) (finding that a plaintiff’s

27

affidavit stating that she would not have purchased insurance from an insurance company had she

28

21
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

known of the insurance company’s historically poor claim practices was enough to show that the

2

plaintiff would not have entered the transaction had the omitted information been disclosed). In

3

the instant case, Plaintiff Brown has failed to provide an affidavit stating that he would not have

4

bought the iPhone 6 Plus had the alleged touchscreen defect been disclosed.
Plaintiff Brown’s predicament is analogous to the situation in Corcoran. In Corcoran, the

5
6

plaintiff alleged that a pharmacy failed to disclose accurate generic drug prices. 169 F. Supp. 3d at

7

975, 993. However, the Corcoran plaintiff did not allege in her complaint that she would not have

8

purchased the generic drugs absent the pharmacy’s failure to disclose accurate generic drug prices.

9

Id. at 993. Thus, there was no evidence that the Corcoran plaintiff would not have entered the
transaction had the omitted information been disclosed. Id. Therefore, the Corcoran court

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

dismissed the TDTPA claim. Id. In the instant case, there is also no evidence indicating that

12

Plaintiff Brown would not have purchased his iPhone 6 Plus had Apple disclosed the alleged

13

touchscreen defect.

14

Here, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 31 merely describes the Apple’s statements that Plaintiff Brown

15

reviewed prior to purchasing his iPhone 6 Plus. Neither Exhibit 31 nor any evidence or affidavit

16

shows that Plaintiff Brown would not have purchased his iPhone 6 Plus had Apple disclosed the

17

alleged touchscreen defect. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy prong (4) of a TDTPA claim.

18

Therefore, Apple’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the TDTPA claim.

19

Injunctive Relief
Apple argues that Plaintiffs Justin Bauer (Colorado), Taylor Brown (Texas), and Eric

20
21

Siegal (Illinois) have no standing to pursue injunctive relief as they do not intend on participating

22

in Apple’s Multi-Touch Repair Program.3 The above dismissals of Plaintiffs Brown and Siegal’s

23

TDTPA and ICFDTPA claims, respectively, render the issue of injunctive relief for Brown and

24

Siegal’s claims moot. Therefore, the Court focuses on Plaintiff Bauer’s injunctive relief claims.

25
26
27
28

Through Apple’s Multi-Touch Repair Program, Apple has offered to repair consumers’ devices
for $149 if the consumers’ iPhone is otherwise working, and the screen is not broken. FACC at ¶
119.
22
3

Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Article III standing requires that “(1) the plaintiff suffered an injury in fact, i.e., one that is

2

sufficiently ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical’;

3

(2) the injury is ‘fairly traceable’ to the challenged conduct, and (3) the injury is ‘likely’ to be

4

‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th

5

Cir. 2007) (quoting Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). “The standing

6

formulation for a plaintiff seeking prospective injunctive relief is simply one implementation of”

7

the general standing requirements. Id. at 985 (internal quotation marks omitted). To establish

8

standing for prospective injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she “has suffered

9

or is threatened with a concrete and particularized legal harm, coupled with a sufficient likelihood
that he will again be wronged in a similar way.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“As to the second inquiry, [a plaintiff] must establish a ‘real and immediate threat of repeated

12

injury.’” Id. (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496 (1974)). “[P]ast wrongs do not in

13

themselves amount to [a] real and immediate threat of injury necessary to make out a case or

14

controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 416 U.S. 95, 111 (1983).

15

In cases involving false or misleading product advertising, “where a plaintiff has no

16

intention of purchasing the product in the future, a majority of district courts have held that the

17

plaintiff has no standing to seek prospective injunctive relief.” Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,

18

76 F. Supp. 3d 964, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “This Court has consistently adopted the majority

19

position that a plaintiff must allege that he or she intends to purchase the products at issue in the

20

future to establish standing for injunctive relief.” Romero v. HP, Inc., 2017 WL 386237, at *9

21

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017) (internal quotations and alterations omitted); see also Rahman v. Mott’s

22

LLP, 2014 WL 325241, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014) (“[T]he Court agrees with defendant that

23

to establish standing, plaintiff must allege that he intends to purchase the products at issue in the

24

future.”).

25

Here, there is no indication that Plaintiff Bauer plans to purchase an iPhone 6 or iPhone 6

26

Plus in the future. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 28, which consists of excerpts from Plaintiff Bauer’s

27

deposition, contains no mention of Plaintiff Bauer’s future intent to purchase an iPhone 6 or 6

28

23
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Plus. See generally Ex. 28. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Plaintiff Bauer’s deposition fails to

2

contain this information. See Opp. at 24. Moreover, Plaintiff Bauer has not provided an affidavit,

3

and Plaintiffs’ FACC does not allege, that Plaintiff Bauer intends to purchase an iPhone 6 or 6

4

Plus in the future. Thus, there is no evidence in the record indicating that Plaintiff Bauer intends to

5

purchase an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus in the future.
However, the Court previously determined that certain Plaintiffs who alleged that they

6

would participate in Apple’s Multi-Touch Repair Program could assert claims for injunctive relief

8

against Apple. ECF No. 103; Davidson II, 2017 WL 3149305, at *8-9. Apple did not contest that

9

an alleged intent to participate in the Multi-Touch Repair Program is enough to confer standing for

10

prospective injunctive relief. Id. at *8. The Court also held that those plaintiffs who do not “allege

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

an intent to participate in the Multi-Touch Repair Program . . . have not alleged a threat of future

12

injury sufficient to confer standing. Id. Here, Plaintiff Bauer admitted in his deposition that he

13

does not intend to participate in the Multi-Touch Repair Program. Plaintiff Bauer testified: “Q. Do

14

you intend to participate in the Multi-Touch program? A. No.” Cheung Decl., Ex. D at 186:14-16.
Here, there is neither evidence that Plaintiff Bauer intends to purchase an iPhone 6 or 6

15
16

Plus nor evidence that Plaintiff Bauer intends to participate in the Multi-Touch Repair Program.

17

Per the Kimberly-Clark Corp. court, “where a plaintiff has no intention of purchasing the product

18

in the future, a majority of district courts have held that the plaintiff has no standing to seek

19

prospective injunctive relief.” 76 F. Supp. 3d at 970. Thus, Plaintiff Bauer lacks standing to pursue

20

injunctive relief. Therefore, Apple’s motion for summary judgment on the injunctive relief claim

21

of Plaintiff Bauer is GRANTED. Apple’s motion for summary judgment on the injunctive relief

22

claim of Plaintiffs Siegal of Illinois and Brown of Texas is DENIED as moot.

23

IV.

24

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Apple’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the

25

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, Texas Deceptive Trade

26

Practices Act claim, and Plaintiff Bauer’s claim for injunctive relief. Because the Court has

27

granted summary judgment on the Illinois and Texas claims, Apple’s motion for summary

28

24
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

judgment is DENIED as moot as to the claims for injunctive relief of Illinois Plaintiff Eric Siegal

2

and Texas Plaintiff Taylor Brown.

3

Apple’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to the Colorado Consumer

4

Protection Act claim, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, and Washington

5

Consumer Protection Act claim.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: February 25, 2019
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

25
Case No. 16-CV-04942-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT