Gordoa v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Carlos Gordoa and other plaintiffs brought product-defect and related claims against Apple Inc., Luxshare-Ict, Inc., and Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd. The claims arose after B.G. allegedly suffered permanent damage to his right ear when an Amber Alert notification was delivered through Apple AirPods Pro headphones. Apple filed a partial motion to dismiss two claims and the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages, and the Luxshare defendants joined that motion.

Choice of Law

Because the case was based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied California’s governmental-interest test to decide whether California or Texas law governed each issue. The defendants argued that Texas law should apply, but the court found that they had not supported their assertion that the laws materially differed or performed the required comparison of the states’ interests. The court therefore assumed, without finally deciding, that California law applied.

Gross Negligence

Under California law, gross negligence requires the elements of ordinary negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—plus conduct showing an extreme departure from ordinary care or a lack of even scant care.

The plaintiffs relied on customer posts on Apple’s online discussion forum. The posts complained that AirPod notifications were frighteningly or painfully loud, including a September 2018 complaint and complaints in April and October 2019. Apple representatives responded with suggestions for reducing notification volume.

The court held that these allegations did not plausibly show gross negligence. The posts did not identify a risk of permanent hearing loss, did not concern the alleged failure of AirPods to automatically adjust notification volume, and did not show that Apple knew its suggested volume adjustments were ineffective. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not alleged the extreme conduct required for a gross-negligence claim.

Fraud by Nondisclosure

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knew the AirPods were defective because they failed to automatically reduce, limit, or equalize notification and alert volumes and lacked adequate warnings. They also alleged that they and B.G. did not know about the defects and would have heeded warnings or not purchased the product had the information been disclosed.

The court concluded that the allegations did not plausibly show either that Apple knew about the specific alleged defect or that the plaintiffs relied on the nondisclosure. The online posts did not indicate that the AirPods failed to adjust notification volume automatically or that notification volume caused serious injury. The plaintiffs also did not allege that they read the product information or warnings and relied on the absence of additional warnings when purchasing the AirPods. The court therefore concluded that the fraud-by-nondisclosure claim was not adequately pleaded.

Punitive Damages and Disposition

The plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages was based on the gross-negligence and fraud claims. Because the court dismissed those claims, it found the request for punitive damages moot.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 14 days of the order. If they do not amend, the defendants’ answer is due November 10, 2022. The court also set an initial case-management conference for November 17, 2022, and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 45.