Collins et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 32

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. (3 in CAN/3:24-cv-01796, 3 in CAN/3:24-cv-01815, 3 in CAN/3:24-cv-01895, 6 in MDL No. 3113, 3 in NJ/2:24-cv-04108), ( 1 in MDL No. 3113), ( 2 in MDL No. 3113) Transferring 6 action(s) to Judge Julien Xavier Neals in the D. New Jersey.Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chair, P ANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 6/7/2024. Associated Cases: MDL No. 3113, CAN/3:24-cv-01796, CAN/3:24-cv-01815, CAN/3:24-cv-01895, CAN/3:24-cv-01988, CAN/3:24-cv-02006, CAN/5:24-cv-01844, NJ/2:24-cv-04108, NJ/2:24-cv-04232, NJ/2:24-cv-04284, NJ/2:24-cv-04355 (JC)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: APPLE INC. SMARTPHONE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 3113

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: ∗ Plaintiffs in a Northern District of California action move under 28
U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California. The litigation
consists of ten actions pending in two districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the
motion, the Panel has been notified of 31 related actions pending in five districts. 1 Defendant
Apple Inc. and nearly all responding plaintiffs either support or do not oppose centralization,
although they differ as to the appropriate transferee district. Plaintiffs in five Northern District of
California actions request that the actions be centralized in the Northern District of California.
Apple and plaintiffs in thirteen actions, in the first instance or in the alternative, request
centralization in the District of New Jersey Plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois Giamanco
potential tag-along action requests that his action, brought on behalf of a putative class of Apple
Watch purchasers, be excluded from any MDL, and that Apple Watch claims by other plaintiffs
be separated and remanded under Section 1407(a).
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the District of New Jersey will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. The actions share common questions of fact arising from allegations that Apple has
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the smartphone market by controlling the creation and
distribution of apps compatible with the iPhone and suppressing technologies that would make the
iPhone more compatible with competitors’ devices. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Apple’s
practices and conduct relating to five technologies—“super apps,” 2 cloud streaming gaming apps,
messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets—have impeded users from purchasing non-Apple
products. Plaintiffs seek certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide classes of iPhone
One or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have
renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision.
∗

1

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1
and 7.2.
2

Super apps are apps that host an array of programs and device features and operate in the same
way on any web browser or device.

-2purchasers and, in some instances, Apple Watch purchasers. Plaintiffs variously assert virtually
identical claims under the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
In view of the number of involved actions, districts, and plaintiffs’ counsel, centralization
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and conserve judicial resources.
Centralization is particularly merited here, as these overlapping cases are highly complex and
likely will involve time-consuming fact and expert discovery. Further, centralization will avoid
the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification and
Daubert issues.
Plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois Giamanco potential tag-along action, who seeks
to represent only Apple Watch purchasers, takes no position with respect to centralization of
iPhone claims, and argues that, if an MDL is created, his action should be excluded and other
claims on behalf of Apple Watch purchasers should be separated and remanded, rather than being
included in the MDL. 3 Plaintiff in Giamanco maintains that there is only minimal overlap between
the Apple Watch and iPhone claims, as they focus on different products and markets, and concern
different types of anticompetitive conduct. 4 This argument is not persuasive. The iPhone and
Apple Watch claims are based on the same premise: that Apple has designed the iPhone and the
Apple Watch to be fully compatible only with one another. All the actions—including
Giamanco—allege that Apple limits the functionality of third-party smartwatches when paired
with iPhones in order to lock users into the Apple “ecosystem.” Moreover, although plaintiff in
Giamanco claims that the classes of iPhone purchasers and Apple Watch purchasers are distinct,
in fact, almost all Apple Watch owners also own iPhones. While the effects of Apple’s alleged
resistance to cross-platform technology on the markets and pricing for iPhones and Apple Watches
may present separate issues, the actions will involve substantial factual overlap and common
discovery.
The District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Twentysix of the 41 total actions are pending there before Judge Julian X. Neals, and Apple and most of
the responding plaintiffs request centralization in that district. Judge Neals also presides over a
related civil antitrust enforcement action recently brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and
the attorneys general of fifteen states and the District of Columbia. Centralization of the private
litigation in the District of New Jersey before Judge Neals will provide opportunities for
coordination with the government action, avoid duplicative discovery, and minimize the risk of
inconsistent rulings on overlapping issues. Judge Neals is an accomplished jurist, and we are
confident that he will steer this matter on an efficient and prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of
3

Moving plaintiff in the Northern District of California Chiuchiarelli action also seeks to
represent a class of Apple Watch purchasers, along with a class of iPhone purchasers.
4

None of the other plaintiffs request that the Apple Watch actions be excluded from the MDL,
and Apple argues that the Apple Watch claims should be included.

-3that court, assigned to the Honorable Julian X. Neals for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton
David C. Norton
Dale A. Kimball

Matthew F. Kennelly
Roger T. Benitez
Madeline Cox Arleo

IN RE: APPLE INC. SMARTPHONE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
COLLINS, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:24−01796
SCHERMER v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:24−01815
CHIUCHIARELLI, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:24−01895
MILLER, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:24−01988
LOEWEN v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:24−02006
DWYER, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 5:24−01844
District of New Jersey
GOLDFUS v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 2:24−04108
KOLINSKY, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 2:24−04232
LEVINE v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 2:24−04284
KURTZ v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 2:24−04355

MDL No. 3113