Turner v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Alasdair Turner alleged that Apple designed the iPhone with hidden software capable of using customers’ cellular data for Apple’s purposes. He alleged that Apple activated this capability through the iOS 13 update, which caused iPhones to send substantial amounts of data to Apple over cellular networks and misidentified the resulting usage as coming from “Uninstalled Apps.” Turner alleged that users could not disable this data use and could therefore incur carrier overage charges or lose cellular data they had paid for.

Turner sued on behalf of himself and a proposed class. He asserted claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and for trespass to chattels, which is an unauthorized interference with personal property. He sought monetary relief, restitution, and an injunction. Apple moved to dismiss the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and trespass claims, and also challenged the requests for equitable relief.

Equitable Relief

The court rejected Apple’s argument that Turner could not seek restitution or an injunction because monetary damages were an adequate remedy. It held that the alleged past loss of cellular data and the alleged risk of future data use presented different harms. In the court’s view, damages could compensate for past harm, while an injunction could address the alleged risk that Apple might reintroduce software capable of using customers’ data. The court also held that restitution could seek the value of the cellular data Apple allegedly received, rather than merely the amount Turner paid Verizon for an additional gigabyte of data.

The court separately held that Turner lacked standing to pursue an injunction under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged that Turner continued to use his iPhone and continued to update it after the alleged conduct. The court concluded that he had not alleged a future injury affecting his future use of the product. It dismissed the injunctive claim without leave to amend, and the conclusion stated that this dismissal was with prejudice. The court allowed Turner to amend his Consumers Legal Remedies Act damages claim.

Unfair Competition Law Claim

The court held that Turner had not alleged facts showing that he relied on Apple’s omissions before or when he purchased his iPhone in 2018. Although he alleged that he received and reviewed materials accompanying the purchase and the device setup, he did not allege that he reviewed marketing or other materials that could have disclosed the alleged data-use capability before buying the phone.

The court therefore granted Apple’s motion to dismiss the Unfair Competition Law claim for lack of standing, with leave to amend. The court stated that additional allegations about Turner’s actions before purchasing the iPhone could potentially cure this problem.

Trespass to Chattels

The court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss the trespass-to-chattels claim. It held that Turner plausibly alleged intentional, unauthorized interference with his possessory interest in the iPhone and resulting damage. The alleged effects included cellular-data charges, reduced data speeds, and loss of purchased cellular data. Turner also alleged that turning off cellular data was the only way to limit the harm, which substantially restricted the iPhone’s functionality.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to dismiss. The order did not dismiss Turner’s restitution requests or trespass claim. It dismissed the injunctive Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim with prejudice, dismissed the Unfair Competition Law claim with leave to amend, and allowed Turner to pursue and amend his Consumers Legal Remedies Act damages claim. The opinion did not state a separate disposition of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claim. Turner’s deadline to file an amended complaint was March 10, 2022.