Crittenden v. Apple, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs were iPhone users from several states who collectively owned various iPhone models. They alleged that Apple’s iOS 14.5.1 update reduced performance and battery life, and that the later iOS 14.6 update did not fix those problems. According to the complaint, the updates made the phones slower and reduced battery performance, allegedly making users more likely to purchase new devices.

The plaintiffs asserted four claims: trespass to chattels, a claim for interference with personal property; violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; violations of California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Apple moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Legal standard

The court applied the federal pleading rules requiring a complaint to provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. Because the claims sounded in fraud, the plaintiffs also had to describe the alleged misconduct with particularity, including the relevant who, what, when, where, and how.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the plaintiffs had not pleaded sufficient facts supporting their theory that Apple intentionally developed the updates to slow the iPhones or reduce battery life. The complaint did not say when the plaintiffs downloaded the updates, how the updates affected their particular devices, or how the plaintiffs personally experienced reduced processing speed or battery performance.

The court also rejected reliance on generalized allegations, anonymous online postings, and an enforcement action in Spain. The court stated that negative online reviews alone did not establish that the updates caused the alleged problems, particularly because other cited online comments reported no issues or described possible explanations for performance problems. Allegations based on information and belief were permitted in some circumstances, but the plaintiffs had not alleged the facts supporting their beliefs. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed under the federal pleading rules requiring sufficient factual detail and particularity.

The court granted Apple’s request to take judicial notice of the webpages and software license agreement cited in the complaint. It did not reach Apple’s alternative grounds for dismissal.

Disposition

The court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. It stated that the plaintiffs could potentially cure the deficiencies by alleging more particular facts about how the updates affected them personally. Any amended complaint had to be filed by July 6, 2022. The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint, or failure to correct the identified deficiencies, would result in dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims. The order did not state whether the plaintiffs later filed an amendment.