Cohen v. Apple Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs purchased nine different iPhone models and sought to represent a nationwide class of people who owned or leased an iPhone for personal or household use. Their operative complaint alleged seven disclosure-related claims and one negligence claim seeking medical monitoring. The plaintiffs alleged that Apple marketed iPhones for use on or near the body but did not disclose that such use allegedly exposed consumers to radio-frequency radiation above Federal Communications Commission limits or to related risks.

Apple initially sought dismissal on several grounds, including federal preemption, lack of standing, and pleading deficiencies. Because the parties presented matters outside the pleadings, the motion became a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, which asks whether the undisputed record entitles a party to judgment as a matter of law. After discovery, Apple again moved for summary judgment on preemption and jurisdiction. The FCC participated as an amicus curiae, meaning a nonparty providing information to assist the court, and filed a statement of interest.

Issue

The central issue was whether the FCC’s radio-frequency exposure regulations displaced the plaintiffs’ state-law tort and consumer-fraud claims. The plaintiffs maintained that a jury should decide whether the iPhones exceeded the FCC’s standards, including when tested at closer distances than the FCC’s required testing distance. They also argued that Apple should have provided additional consumer disclosures.

Analysis

The court first concluded that the FCC’s regulations were substantively authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, rather than being merely procedural requirements adopted under the National Environmental Policy Act. It also rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevented implied preemption or required a particular notice-and-comment process before preemption could apply. The court concluded that the 1996 Act did not eliminate the FCC’s longstanding authority over radio telecommunications and RF exposure standards.

The court applied conflict preemption, which occurs when state law obstructs the objectives of federal law. It found that the FCC had deliberately created uniform, nationwide technical standards balancing safety and efficient wireless service. The FCC had certified each iPhone model at issue as compliant, and FCC testing in response to the Chicago Tribune’s report found no violations when the phones were tested under the procedures used for their original certifications.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ claims would interfere with the federal system in either of two ways. Claims based on testing phones at distances or under procedures not required by the FCC would challenge the agency’s testing and certification process. Claims asserting that certified phones were unsafe or required additional warnings would conflict with the FCC’s policy judgments that its limits included substantial safety margins and that its existing consumer information was adequate. In the court’s view, allowing the claims to proceed could produce varying state-law testing or disclosure requirements and undermine the uniform federal regime.

The court also relied on the FCC’s statement of interest. It found that statement thorough, persuasive, and consistent with the agency’s prior positions and with the regulatory history. The court noted that the FCC could investigate complaints about certified devices and that consumers could directly challenge agency rulemaking. The court stated that if the FCC’s enforcement officials determined that an authorized device no longer complied with the standards, state-law remedies might remain available after the compliance issue was resolved by the agency.

Disposition

The conclusion states: “To the extent stated herein, Apple’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.” The court also stated that the parties’ pending discovery disputes were “DENIED AS MOOT” and that judgment against the plaintiffs and in favor of Apple would be entered separately.