Maldonado v. Apple, Inc

Background

Plaintiffs alleged that Apple breached AppleCare and AppleCare+ agreements requiring replacement devices to be new or equivalent to new in performance, reliability, and function. Plaintiffs alleged that Apple’s remanufactured devices, which used some parts recovered from returned devices, did not meet that standard.

On September 17, 2019, the court certified a class consisting of individuals who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+, directly or through the iPhone Upgrade Program, on or after July 20, 2012, and received a remanufactured replacement device. Class notice had been approved, but the parties stopped notice while addressing a data problem.

Apple provided contact information for people associated with replacement devices. For approximately 1.33 million of roughly four million remanufactured devices, the person who received or activated the device could not be matched to the person identified as the AppleCare or AppleCare+ purchaser. Apple said this could happen when a purchaser sold, gave away, lost, or had a device stolen without transferring the plan, among other possibilities. Plaintiffs also identified situations such as a parent purchasing a device and plan for a child.

Motion to Clarify or Modify the Class Definition

Plaintiffs asked the court to confirm that “received” meant that Apple issued a replacement device under the plan and the plan purchaser’s contract rights, regardless of who physically received or activated the device. Alternatively, they proposed changing the class definition to refer to people who purchased a plan and received a device under which Apple provided a remanufactured replacement device.

The court denied the motion to clarify or modify the class definition. It concluded that the existing definition requires a class member to have purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+, purchased it during the specified period, and received a remanufactured replacement device. The court said that “received” is tied to the person who purchased the plan.

The court relied in part on plaintiffs’ earlier arguments supporting class certification. Plaintiffs had represented that class members purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+, received the same contractual promise, and received remanufactured replacement devices. Plaintiffs’ damages model also measured the difference between the value of the equivalent-to-new device promised and the value of the remanufactured device received. The court reasoned that the proposed clarification or modification would remove the receipt requirement and conflict with the damages theory on which the class had been certified.

The court nevertheless explained that denying the requested change did not automatically exclude all purchasers associated with the 1.33 million devices. A different person activating a device does not necessarily mean that the AppleCare or AppleCare+ purchaser did not receive it. A purchaser may have received a replacement and then given it to someone else to use. If a device recipient was the plan purchaser but Apple’s data does not show that match, the person may submit proof of purchasing the plan and receiving the device under it. The court stated that receipt, rather than later use, controls under the existing class definition.

Motion to Seal

Apple separately moved to redact information about its internal AppleCare and AppleCare+ replacement process. The court denied the motion to seal and ordered Apple to file an unredacted version of its brief within 14 days.

The court applied the strong presumption of public access to court records and the requirement that a party seeking to seal records connected to the underlying claims show compelling reasons. Apple argued that the information was highly confidential and that disclosure could cause competitive harm and increase the risk of fraud. The court acknowledged Apple’s confidentiality concerns but concluded that the information was necessary to understand the order and the class’s scope. The court also noted that some details could be derived from information Apple had already disclosed.

Disposition

The motion to modify or clarify the class definition was DENIED. People associated with the 1.33 million devices were to receive class notice, and the court stated that some of them were likely class members under the existing definition. Apple’s motion to seal was also DENIED, and Apple was ordered to file an unredacted brief within 14 days.