Vivar v. Apple Inc.

Background

Alejandro Vivar sued Apple Inc. individually and on behalf of proposed classes of consumers. He alleged that Apple’s marketing for Powerbeats Pro wireless headphones was materially misleading. The marketing stated that each earbud provided “up to 9 hours of listening time,” that the headphones provided “24 hours with the Powerbeats charging case,” and that five minutes of charging provided 1.5 hours of playback. Vivar alleged that one earbud would not consistently charge or would quickly lose its charge because of a suspected design defect involving the charging case and corrosion from perspiration.

The complaint asserted ten causes of action: violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350; violations of consumer-fraud laws in the states where other proposed plaintiffs resided; breach of contract; breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust enrichment. Vivar alleged that he bought the headphones in New York for at least $150 based on Apple’s battery-life representations.

Apple’s Motions

Apple moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which addresses personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Apple argued that none of Vivar’s claims was adequately pleaded. Apple also argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over claims asserted for proposed class members outside New York because those claims were not connected to Apple’s activities in New York.

Vivar withdrew his request for an injunction. He argued that his allegations were sufficient and that the proposed out-of-state class claims could proceed based on his New York residency.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court deferred deciding whether it had personal jurisdiction over the proposed Non-New York Class members’ claims. It explained that courts in the district generally defer that question until the class-certification stage, particularly because the proposed out-of-state consumers might never become parties to the case. The court also noted that Vivar had not yet stated a claim.

The court therefore denied Apple’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion at that time, without prejudice to Apple raising a similar jurisdictional argument in response to any amended complaint. The opinion stated that Apple did not challenge jurisdiction over Vivar’s claims or the proposed New York Class’s claims.

Failure to State a Claim

The court analyzed the claims of Vivar and the proposed New York Class under Rule 12(b)(6). Although the complaint included Apple’s “up to” battery-life statements, Vivar told the court that his claims were instead based on alleged statements that the product would be “defect-free” and would “charge equally and consistently.”

The court concluded that the complaint did not provide the writing or marketing materials containing those alleged statements, or other facts substantiating that Apple made them. Because the advertising itself was central to determining whether a reasonable consumer would have been misled, the court found that the allegations were not facially plausible. The court did not decide whether the product actually had a defect or whether Apple ultimately misled consumers.

Disposition

The court granted Apple’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court granted Vivar leave to file an amended complaint no later than October 14, 2022. The court denied Apple’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion at that time, without prejudice to renewing the jurisdictional argument in response to an amended complaint.