In Re: MacBook Keyboard Litigation

Background

Nine consumers filed a proposed class action against Apple Inc. They alleged that MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air laptops had a defective “butterfly” keyboard design. According to the complaint, dust or debris could cause keys to stick, repeat characters, fail to respond, or fail to register keystrokes. The consumers alleged that Apple knew about the design problem before selling the laptops but marketed the keyboards as highly responsive.

The consumers asserted claims under several state laws, including California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and consumer-protection laws from other states. They sought damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable relief, including disclosures about the alleged defect and reimbursement for costs related to repairing or replacing laptops and keyboards.

Apple had announced a Keyboard Service Program offering free service for certain MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air models. The service could involve replacing individual keys or the entire keyboard, and the program stated that consumers who had paid for repairs could contact Apple about a refund. The consumers alleged that the program did not cure the underlying design defect, that replacement keyboards could have the same problem, and that the refund process did not clearly provide full compensation.

Apple’s Motion

Apple moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Apple argued that the consumers lacked an injury, Article III standing, and prudential standing because the Keyboard Service Program addressed the alleged defect. Apple also argued that the program made the CLRA and Song-Beverly Act claims moot.

Judicial Notice

The court took judicial notice of two Apple webpages describing the Keyboard Service Program, including the fact that Apple made the statements on those webpages and offered free service for the eligible laptop models listed there. The court did not take judicial notice of whether the program effectively remedied the alleged keyboard defect because that issue was disputed by the parties.

Standing and Mootness

The court held that the consumers adequately pleaded Article III standing. Standing requires an injury that is concrete and personal, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision can remedy the injury.

The consumers alleged that Apple’s failure to repair the defective keyboards, including through the Keyboard Service Program, caused each of them a concrete and personal injury. The court found that the alleged injury was connected to Apple’s conduct and could be remedied by a favorable decision. The court also found that the consumers adequately alleged that the service program was ineffective and that they sought relief beyond what the program offered, including damages and an injunction.

The court rejected Apple’s argument that the consumers had to participate personally in the service program to establish standing. It also declined to apply “prudential mootness,” a doctrine that can permit dismissal when changed circumstances eliminate a meaningful need for relief, because the Ninth Circuit had not adopted that doctrine generally outside the bankruptcy context.

California Consumer Legal Remedies Act Claim

The consumers alleged that Apple violated the CLRA by misrepresenting the laptops’ characteristics, benefits, quality, or grade, and by advertising them with an intent not to sell them as advertised. Apple argued that the service program was an appropriate correction or remedy under California law and therefore barred the consumers’ damages claim.

The court denied dismissal of the CLRA claim. It found that the consumers adequately alleged that the program did not fix the defect and did not provide all the relief they sought. Whether the program actually cured the defect could not be resolved at the pleading stage.

Song-Beverly Act Claim

Plaintiffs Rao and Baruch alleged that Apple breached the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act by selling laptops that were not fit for their ordinary purpose because keyboard failures interfered with typing. Apple argued that the service program provided the remedy required by the statute and that the consumers had not participated in it.

The court held that the consumers adequately pleaded a Song-Beverly Act claim. It concluded that they were not required to participate in the service program before asserting a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The court therefore denied Apple’s request to dismiss that claim.

Disposition

The court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged keyboard defect existed, whether Apple ultimately violated the asserted laws, or whether the consumers would prevail on the claims.