Jaiyeola v. AT&T

Background

Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola, representing himself, sued AT&T Mobility, LLC, Verizon Communications, Inc., Apple Inc., and T-Mobile U.S. He alleged that the defendants advertised the iPhone 15 Pro’s outer material as titanium even though it contained alloys of both titanium and aluminum. He brought claims under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and California’s false-advertising law.

When he filed the case, Jaiyeola had not purchased an iPhone 15 Pro. He alleged that he had purchased earlier iPhone models and would have purchased an iPhone 15 Pro but for the alleged advertising. In a proposed second amended complaint, he alleged that he purchased an iPhone 15 Pro on January 16, 2024, despite knowing about the phone’s materials.

Motions and legal standard

AT&T, joined by Verizon, Apple, and T-Mobile, filed motions to dismiss. Jaiyeola moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court applied the rule requiring a complaint to contain enough factual matter to plausibly show entitlement to relief. It also considered the more lenient standard for self-represented pleadings, while noting that such pleadings still must tell defendants what they allegedly did wrong and why relief is warranted.

Federal false-advertising claim

The court held that Jaiyeola lacked statutory standing to bring his Lanham Act claim. The court explained that the Act allows a plaintiff to sue for an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales, and that a consumer cannot bring a Lanham Act false-advertising claim merely because the consumer was allegedly misled or purchased a disappointing product. The court found that Jaiyeola alleged only that he was a consumer who had purchased various Apple iPhones, not that he had a commercial interest in reputation or sales.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Count I for lack of standing.

California false-advertising claim

The court also held that Jaiyeola lacked standing under California’s false-advertising law. A private plaintiff must allege an economic injury—loss of money or property—and show that the alleged advertising caused that injury. The court found that Jaiyeola’s first amended complaint did not allege that he purchased an iPhone 15 Pro, paid more because of the advertising, or otherwise lost money or property because of the defendants’ conduct.

The court rejected Jaiyeola’s argument that he was injured by being unable to rely on future advertising. The court stated that this theory may apply to a customer previously deceived into an economic injury, but found that Jaiyeola had not alleged such an injury. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Count II for lack of standing.

Leave to amend

The court denied Jaiyeola’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. It found that amendment would be futile because the alleged deficiencies were not merely missing facts that could be added. According to the court, Jaiyeola had affirmatively alleged that he was a consumer rather than a competitor for purposes of the Lanham Act claim. For the California claim, the court found that his allegations showed he did not rely on the defendants’ advertising when he purchased the iPhone 15 Pro because he already knew about its materials.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice and denied Jaiyeola’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The court instructed the clerk to close the file.