Crittenden v. Apple, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:21-cv-04322
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Crittenden v. Apple, Inc.: Judge Davila granted Apple’s motion to dismiss claims about allegedly harmful iPhone updates, allowing plaintiffs to amend.
The fifteen named iPhone-user plaintiffs, the proposed national and state classes, and Apple, Inc.
What happened
In Crittenden v. Apple, Inc., iPhone users sued Apple over software updates that they said reduced battery life, processing speed, and other functionality. They brought claims under federal and California computer-fraud laws, for interference with their devices, and under California’s unfair-competition law, seeking money and an order requiring Apple to act.
Apple argued that the second amended complaint still did not provide enough specific facts. The court agreed that the plaintiffs described problems with their own phones, but said they did not identify when the problems began or which of the three updates caused each problem. The court said this missing connection between the alleged harm and Apple’s conduct did not meet the required pleading standard.
Judge Davila granted Apple’s motion to dismiss and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The court did not address Apple’s other arguments and set October 10, 2023, as the deadline for any amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Crittenden v. Apple, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-04322
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
Andruw Crittenden, Dana Cooper, Deborah Valcourt, Jennifer Herbert, Gloria King, Cortney Schneider, Antonio Holland, Jessie Santiago, Brianna Pasquale, Patricia Simon, Monica Charles, Steve Wayne Watson, Michael Moore, Brandi Leon, and Maria Oneal sued Apple, Inc., individually and on behalf of proposed national and state classes. The plaintiffs alleged that iOS 14.5, iOS 14.5.1, and iOS 14.6 harmed their iPhones by reducing processing speed, battery life, and other functionality. Their claims included the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, trespass to chattels, and California’s Unfair Competition Laws. They sought injunctive and monetary relief.
Apple moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Because the claims sounded in fraud, the court also applied Rule 9(b), which requires fraud allegations to describe the circumstances with particularity, including the who, what, when, where, and how.
Court’s Analysis
The court had previously dismissed an earlier complaint because the plaintiffs relied on other people’s experiences and did not provide enough facts about harm to their own devices. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs added allegations describing their individual experiences. For example, Crittenden alleged slower applications, reduced battery life, glitches, automatic shutdowns, and overheating. Schneider alleged lagging pages, crashing applications, longer loading times, and random shutdowns. The other plaintiffs also alleged individual device problems.
The court found, however, that the amended allegations still did not identify when the plaintiffs’ harms began or which update caused which harm. The plaintiffs alleged that they promptly installed the updates after their releases, but the complaint did not clearly connect particular injuries to iOS 14.5, iOS 14.5.1, iOS 14.6, or a combination of those updates. The court also noted that the complaint included general allegations about harm from iOS 14.5.1 and iOS 14.6 but no comparable statements regarding iOS 14.5.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not pleaded a sufficiently specific connection between their alleged injuries and Apple’s conduct. It granted the dismissal for that reason and did not address Apple’s remaining arguments.
Ruling
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Apple’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court permitted the plaintiffs to file another amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies and ordered that any such complaint be filed by October 10, 2023.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.