Vivar v. Apple Inc.

Background

Alejandro Vivar sued Apple Inc. individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. He alleged that Apple’s representations about the battery life of Powerbeats Pro wireless headphones were materially misleading. The amended complaint asserted seven causes of action: violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350; violations of consumer-fraud laws in Michigan, Montana, Rhode Island, Georgia, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Oklahoma; breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and unjust enrichment.

Apple moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim based on its factual allegations. The court noted that Vivar’s original complaint had previously been dismissed without prejudice to leave to amend because it did not provide facts substantiating Apple’s alleged statements that the headphones would be defect-free and would charge equally and consistently.

Reasons for the Ruling

The court held that the amended complaint still did not identify or substantiate the alleged statements. The advertisement added to the amended complaint did not contain the representations Vivar said were the basis of his claims, and the amended complaint did not plausibly identify another source for them.

For the New York General Business Law Section 349 and 350 claims, the court held that Vivar had not identified the alleged deceptive acts, practices, or false advertising. Apple’s motion to dismiss those claims was GRANTED.

The court also GRANTED Apple’s motion to dismiss the consumer-fraud claims asserted under the laws of the other listed states because those claims likewise depended on allegedly misleading advertisements that Vivar had not provided.

The court GRANTED the motion to dismiss the express-warranty, implied-warranty, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims. For the express-warranty claim, Vivar had not identified an affirmation, promise, or product description that became part of the bargain and was breached. The court also found that Vivar had not plausibly alleged that he gave Apple the required pre-suit notice of a warranty breach. The implied-warranty claim failed for the same notice problem and because Vivar alleged that he purchased the headphones from Best Buy rather than directly from Apple, leaving no direct buyer-seller relationship with Apple. The Magnuson-Moss claim failed because Vivar had not adequately pleaded an underlying state-law warranty claim.

The court GRANTED the motion to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim. It held that the claim duplicated Vivar’s warranty and deceptive-practices claims, arose from the same facts, and did not allege distinct damages or an unusual circumstance creating a separate equitable obligation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend because it would be futile. Vivar had already been given clear instructions about the alleged representations needed to support the New York deceptive-practices and express-warranty claims, but the amended complaint still did not identify them. Amending the implied-warranty claim would not change the alleged fact that Vivar purchased the headphones from Best Buy rather than Apple. Amending the unjust-enrichment claim would also be futile because Vivar could not identify the representations that the product allegedly failed to satisfy.

The court’s final order GRANTED Apple’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with prejudice to leave to amend. The clerk was directed to close the case and terminate pending motions. The court did not address Apple’s Rule 12(b)(1) argument concerning injunctive relief because Vivar said that request had been included in error.