Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
5
Daniel C. Levin, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted)
6 Charles E. Schaffer, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice to be submitted)
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
7 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19102
8 Tel: (215) 592-1500
25 Plaintiffs,
vs.
26
APPLE, INC.,
27 Defendant.
28
.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 2 of 67
1 Plaintiffs Khendle Williams, Cynthia Stacy, Gene Schlaefer, Trent Young, Ashley
2 Antonucci, Kristin Edgerly, Melissa Koncinsky, Sandra Merola, Shakena Harrison, Brandi White,
3 Derrick Marzette, Ruth Beauchan, Danielle Sanguedolce, Dennis Johnson, Kelly Schulze, Charles
4 Saadiq, Suzanne Carter, Kelly Jankowski, Tiffany Williams, Noelle Boehme, Jenifer Kachik,
5 Crystal Saldana, Ryan Ward, Patty Burriss, Charlene Lowery, Margie Cleveland, Lillie Diaz,
6 Craig Moore, Heather Schwartz, Andrew Yashchuk, Joshua Mosby (“Plaintiffs”), individually and
7 on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, file this Consolidated
8 Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”). The
9 following allegations are based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiffs’ own conduct and the
10 investigation conducted by their counsel, and documents publicly available through Apple and/or
13 1. This is a consumer class action alleging that Apple failed to disclose to Plaintiffs
14 that Apple’s iPhone operating system (“iOS”) would materially degrade the operation of their
15 iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, or 7 Plus models smartphones (hereinafter and collectively
17 when their non-user replaceable batteries lost storage capacity after multiple charge and discharge
18 cycles. As detailed herein, Apple surreptitiously throttled the processor speeds of iPhones to mask
19 the manifestation of sudden shutdowns that iPhones with degraded batteries were experiencing.
20 Plaintiffs hereinafter refer to this surreptitious throttling – and its causes and impacts – as the
21 “throttling defect”.
22 2. Though Apple touted the iPhones as premium and durable flagship smartphones
23 with high performance, it knew that iPhone batteries would age over time and become unable to
24 provide the electrical current necessary to prevent the phones from seemingly random shutdowns
25 during routine operation. Despite this knowledge, Apple sealed the batteries within the iPhones and
28 (“iOS updates”) to their phones, which promised a variety of usability and security upgrades while
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 3 of 67
1 surreptiously and materially throttling the processor speed of iPhones with reduced-capacity
2 batteries. Apple concealed this change, and Plaintiffs and other iPhone owners were left with
3 premium devices that were intentionally hobbled by Apple without any means of knowing that the
4 throttling defect could be remedied by the replacement of the degraded battery with a new battery
5 (which would cost far less than the price of a new iPhone). Defendant then unjustly profited on this
6 omission by reaping the benefit of increased sales of new iPhones from customers who were forced
7 to replace their old and inexplicably throttled iPhones with new iPhones. Indeed, in the first quarter
8 of 2017 (when Apple released the processor-throttling update), Apple’s iPhone 7 became the best-
10 4. The throttling defect significantly impairs the operability of the phones when it,
12 5. The average American replaces his or her cell phone only every 30 months. 2 The
13 defect and its problems cause the iPhones to fail well within this period of time.
14 6. As a result of these failures in iPhones, and the monetary costs associated with
15 repairs and replacements, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injuries in fact, incurred
18 and violations of numerous federal and state consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs also seek money
20
21
1
22 http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/10/apples-iphone-7-was-worlds-best-selling-smartphone-in-
first-quarter-of-2017
23 2
Thomas Gryta, Americans Keep Their Cellphones Longer, Wall Street Journal (Apr. 18, 2016,
24 3:22 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-keep-their-cellphones-longer-1461007321 (last
accessed Jan. 8, 2018; Andrew Meola, People Are Taking Longer to Upgrade Their Smartphones,
25 Business Insider (June 30, 3016, 2:16 PM), http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-taking-
longer-to-upgrade-their-smartphones-2016-6 (last accessed Jan. 8, 2018); see also CE Product Life
26 Cycle study, https://www.cta.tech/News/Blog/Articles/2014/September/The-Life-Expectancy-of-
27 Electronics.aspx (consumers expect smartphones to last 4.7 years on average) (last accessed Jan. 8,
2018).
28
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 4 of 67
1 PARTIES
2 A. Plaintiffs
3 8. At all relevant times, Khendle Willaims was a citizen of the United States, residing
5 9. At all relevant times, Cynthia Stacy was a citizen of the United States, residing in
6 Ward, Arkansas.
7 10. At all relevant times, Gene Schlaefer was a citizen of the United States, residing in
9 11. At all relevant times, Trent Young was a citizen of the United States, residing in
10 Arizona.
11 12. At all relevant times, Halee Dion was a citizen of the United States, residing in Los
12 Angeles, California.
13 13. At all relevant times, Ashley Antonucci was a citizen of the United States, residing
14 in Ansonia, Connecticut.
15 14. At all relevant times, Kristin Edgerly was a citizen of the United States, residing in
16 Ridgefield, Connecticut.
17 15. At all relevant times, Melissa Koncinsky was a citizen of the United States, residing
18 in Preston, Connecticut
19 16. At all relevant times, Sandra Merola was a citizen of the United States, residing in
21 17. At all relevant times, Derrick Marzette was a citizen of the United States, residing in
23 18. At all relevant times, Ruth Beauchan was a citizen of the United States, residing in
25 19. At all relevant times, Danielle Sanguedolce was a citizen of the United States
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 5 of 67
1 21. At all relevant times, Kelly Schulze was a citizen of the United States, residing in
2 Baltimore, Maryland.
3 22. At all relevant times, Charles Saadiq was a citizen of the United States, residing in
4 Southfield, Michigan.
5 23. At all relevant times, Suzanne Carter was a citizen of the United States, residing in
6 Painesville, Ohio.
7 24. At all relevant times, Kelly Jankowski was a citizen of the United States, residing in
8 Canfield, Ohio.
9 25. At all relevant times, Tiffany Williams was a citizen of the United States, residing in
10 Columbus, Ohio.
11 26. At all relevant times, Noelle Boehme was a citizen of the United States, residing in
12 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
13 27. At all relevant times, Jenifer Kachik was a citizen of the United States, residing in
15 28. At all relevant times, Ryan Ward was a citizen of the United States, residing in
16 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
17 29. At all relevant times, Crystal Saldana was a citizen of the United States, residing in
18 Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
19 30. At all relevant times, Patty Burriss was a citizen of the United States, residing in
21 31. At all relevant times, Charlene Lowery was a citizen of the United States, residing in
23 32. At all relevant times, Margie Cleveland was a citizen of the United States, residing
25 33. At all relevant times, Lillie Diaz was a citizen of the United States, residing in Oil
26 Spring, Texas.
27 34. At all relevant times, Craig Moore was a citizen of the United States, residing in
28 Conroe, Texas.
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 6 of 67
1 35. At all relevant times, Heather Schwartz was a citizen of the United States, residing
2 in Spring, Texas.
3 36. At all relevant times, Andrew Yashchuk was a citizen of the United States, residing
4 in Austin, Texas.
5 37. At all relevant times, Joshua Mosby was a citizen of the United States, residing in
6 Williamsburg, Virginia.
7 B. Defendant
8 38. Defendant Apple Inc. is a California corporation with an address at 1 Infinite Loop
9 Cupertino, CA 95014.
11 39. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the
12 Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The aggregated claims of the individual class
13 members exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs. This is a putative
14 class action in which more than two-thirds of the proposed class members are citizens of states other
15 than the state in which Defendant is deemed to reside. In addition, this Court has supplemental
17 40. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple because its principal place of
18 business is within this District; Apple has sufficient minimum contacts in this District to render the
19 exercise of jurisdiction by this Court proper; Apple has consented to jurisdiction by registering to
20 conduct business in California; and Apple otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California
21 markets through promotion, sale, marketing and distribution of its iPhones in and from California,
22 which renders the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court proper and necessary as Apple is “at home”
23 in California.
24 41. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Apple’s principal
25 place of business is within this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
28
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 7 of 67
3 42. Plaintiff Khendle Williams purchased a new iPhone 6 plus and a new iPhone 7 plus
4 at a Verizon location in or around Pike Road, Alabama both for approximately $999.99, paid
5 monthly in 2016. The fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone
6 with high performance was material to Plaintiff Khendle Williams and to other reasonable
7 consumers.
8 43. In or around September of 2017, almost exactly after a year of ownership, Plaintiff
9 Khendle Williams iPhones started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow and
11 44. Plaintiff Khendle Williams brought her phone to a Verizon Store, but was not
12 informed by an associate or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of her
13 phones.
14 45. Plaintiff never rooted her phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
15 system software. Plaintiff used and maintained her phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
16 consumer.
18 46. Plaintiff Cynthia Stacy purchased two new iPhone 6 pluses at an AT&T location in
19 or around Ward, Arkansas for approximately $999.99, paid monthly in 2016. The fact that
20 Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone with high performance was
22 47. In or around September of 2017, almost exactly after one and a half years of
23 ownership, Plaintiff Cynthia Stacy’s iPhones started suffering from processor throttling, by
25 48. Plaintiff Cynthia brought her phones to the AT&T store, but was not informed by
26 the associates or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of her phones.
27 49. Plaintiff never rooted her phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
28 system software. Plaintiff used and maintained her phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 8 of 67
1 consumer.
3 50. Plaintiff Gene Schlaefer purchased an iPhone 6 Plus in October, 2016. The battery
4 went completely dead and could not be replaced. Plaintiff replaced the phone on December 22,
6 51. Plaintiff Trent Young purchased an iPhone 6S at the Apple Store in Arrowhead
7 Town Center in Glendale, Arizona. As a result of Defendants’ Conduct, Plaintiff thought his
8 battery was dead and had to purchase a new replacement phone at the Apple Store in Arrowhead
10 52. Plaintiffs brought their phones to the store, but were not informed by the associates
11 or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of their phones.
12 53. Plaintiffs never rooted their phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
13 system software. Plaintiffs used and maintained their phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
14 consumer.
16 54. Plaintiff Halee Dion purchased a new iPhone 6 at Best Buy in or around 2016 on for
17 approximately $499.00 on payment. The fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable
18 flagship phone with high performance was material to Plaintiff Halee Dion and to other reasonable
19 consumers.
20 55. In or around 2017, Plaintiff Halee Dion started suffering from processor throttling,
21 with the phone becoming slow and sluggish to the point of becoming unusable.
22 56. Plaintiff Halee Dion purchased a replacement phone on about January 10, 2018.
23 57. Plaintiff never rooted her phone or otherwise modified the original operating
24 software. Plaintiff used and maintained her phone in a manner typical of a reasonable customer.
25 E. Plaintiffs Ashley Antonucci, Kristin Edgerly, Melissa Koncinsky, and Sandra Merola
26 (Connecticut)
27 58. Plaintiff Ashley Antonucci, purchased a new iPhone 6 at a Verizon location in or
28 around Derby, Connecticut for approximately $699.99, paid monthly about two years ago. Plaintiff
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 9 of 67
1 Kristin Edgerly, purchased two new iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s at an Apple location in or around
2 Ridgefield, Connecticut for approximately $699.99, paid monthly about three years ago. Plaintiff
3 Melissa Koncinsky, purchased two new iPhone 6s’s at a Sprint location in or around Waterford,
4 Connecticut for approximately $699.99, paid monthly on October 2015. And, Plaintiff Sandra
5 Merola purchased two new iPhones a 6 plus two years ago and an iPhone 7 plus last year at an
6 Apple and Best Buy location in or around West Brook, Connecticut for approximately $699.99 each
7 phone, paid monthly on 2016 and 2017. The fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and
8 durable flagship phone with high performance was material to Plaintiffs Ashley Antonucci, Kristin
9 Edgerly, Melissa Koncinsky, and Sandra Merola and to other reasonable consumers.
10 59. In or around September of 2017, after about 2-3 years of ownership, Plaintiffs
11 Ashley Antonucci, Kristin Edgerly, Melissa Koncinsky, and Sandra Merola’s iPhones started
12 suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow and sluggish to the point of becoming
13 unusable.
14 60. Plaintiffs Ashley Antonucci, Kristin Edgerly, Melissa Koncinsky, and Sandra
15 Merola brought their phones to Verizon, T-Mobile, Apple, AT&T, and Best Buy stores, but they
16 were not informed by the associates or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant
18 61. Plaintiffs never rooted their phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
19 system software. Plaintiffs used and maintained their phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
20 consumer.
23 around Fort Gordon, for approximately $699.99, paid monthly in 2016. The fact that Defendant
24 advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone with high performance was material to
26 63. In or around September of 2017, almost exactly after one year of ownership,
27 Plaintiff Derrick Marzette’s iPhone started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 10 of 67
1 64. Plaintiff Derrick Marzette brought his phone to the Verizon store, but was not
2 informed by the associates or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of his
3 phones.
4 65. Plaintiff never rooted his phone, or otherwise modified the original operating system
5 software. Plaintiff used and maintained his phone in a manner typical of a reasonable consumer.
7 66. Plaintiff Ruth Beauchan purchased two new iPhone 6’s at an Apple location in or
8 around Fremont, California for approximately $699.99, paid monthly around 2014. The fact that
9 Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone with high performance was
11 67. In or around September of 2017, almost exactly after three years of ownership,
12 Plaintiff Ruth Beauchan’s iPhones started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow
14 68. Plaintiff Ruth Beauchan brought her phones to the AT&T store, but was not
15 informed by the associates or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of her
16 phone.
17 69. Plaintiff never rooted her phone, or otherwise modified the original operating
18 system software. Plaintiff used and maintained her phone in a manner typical of a reasonable
19 consumer.
22 around Methuen, Massachusetts for approximately $699.99, paid monthly about three years ago.
23 The fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone with high
24 performance was material to Plaintiff Danielle Sanguedolce and to other reasonable consumers.
25 71. In or around May or June of 2017, almost exactly about three years of ownership,
26 Plaintiff Danielle Sanguedolce’s iPhone started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming
27 slow and sluggish to the point of becoming unusable.
28
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 11 of 67
1 72. Plaintiff Danielle Sanguedolce brought her phone to the Verizon store, but was not
2 informed by the associates or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of her
3 phones.
4 73. Plaintiff never rooted her phone, or otherwise modified the original operating
5 system software. Plaintiff used and maintained her phone in a manner typical of a reasonable
6 consumer.
9 around Brooklyn Park, Maryland for approximately $699.99, paid monthly in 2015. Plaintiff Kelly
10 Schulze purchased an iPhone 6 Plus on February 20, 2016 at a mall store. Plaintiff purchased a
11 new phone thereafter. The fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable flagship
12 phone with high performance was material to Plaintiffs Dennis Johnson and Kelly Schulze and to
14 75. In or around of 2016, almost exactly after a one year of ownership, Plaintiffs Dennis
15 Johnson and Kelly Schulze’s iPhones started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow
17 76. Plaintiffs Dennis Johnson and Kelly Schulze brought their phones to the AT&T
18 store, but were not informed by the associates or Apple that the iOS update would result in
20 77. Plaintiffs never rooted their phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
21 system software. Plaintiffs used and maintained their phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
22 consumer.
24 78. Plaintiff Charles Saadiq leased a new iPhone 6S from Sprint around November,
25 2017. The fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone with high-end
26 features was material to Plaintiff Charles Saadiq and to other reasonable consumers.
27 79. In or around November 25, 2017, almost exactly after a year of ownership, Plaintiff
28 Charles Saadiq’s iPhone started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow and sluggish
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 12 of 67
2 80. Plaintiff bought a new iPhone but was not informed by Apple that the iOS update
4 81. Plaintiff never rooted his phone, or otherwise modified the original operating system
5 software. Plaintiff used and maintained his phone in a manner typical of a reasonable consumer.
8 around Painesville, Ohio for approximately $699.99, paid monthly about three years ago. Kelly
9 Jankowski, purchased two new iPhone 6s’s at a Sprint location in or around Canfield, Ohio for
10 approximately $999.99, paid monthly on October 2015. Tiffany Williams purchased two new
11 iPhones a 6 (2015) and a 7 plus (2016/2017) at an AT&T location in or around Columbus, Ohio for
12 approximately $699.99, each phone, paid monthly. The fact that Defendant advertised it as a
13 premium and durable flagship phone with high performance was material to Plaintiffs Suzanne
14 Carter, Kelly Jankowski, and Tiffany Williams and to other reasonable consumers.
15 83. In or around 2014 and September of 2017, almost exactly after about 2-4 years of
16 ownership, Plaintiffs Suzanne Carter, Kelly Jankowski, and Tiffany Williams’s iPhones started
17 suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow and sluggish to the point of becoming
18 unusable.
19 84. Plaintiffs Suzanne Carter, Kelly Jankowski, and Tiffany Williams brought their
20 phones to Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T stores, but they were not informed by the associates or
21 Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of their phones.
22 85. Plaintiffs never rooted their phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
23 system software. Plaintiffs used and maintained their phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
24 consumer.
25 L. Plaintiffs Noelle Boehme, Jenifer Kachik, Ryan Ward, and Crystal Saldana
26 (Pennsylvania)
27 86. Plaintiff Noelle Boehme, purchased a new iPhone 6 at a Verizon location in or
28 around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for approximately $699.99, paid monthly about three years ago.
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 13 of 67
2 Pennsylvania for approximately $999.99, paid monthly two years ago. Ryan Ward purchased two
3 new iPhone 6’s at a Verizon location in or around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for approximately
4 $699.99 each phone, paid monthly on October 2015. Crystal Saldana purchased an iPhone. The
5 fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone with high performance
6 was material to Plaintiffs Noelle Boehme, Jenifer Kachik, Ryan Ward, and Crystal Saldana and to
8 87. In or around September of 2017, almost exactly after about 2 years of ownership,
9 Plaintiffs Noelle Boehme, Jenifer Kachik, Ryan Ward, and Crystal Saldana’s iPhones started
10 suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow and sluggish to the point of becoming
11 unusable.
12 88. Plaintiffs Noelle Boehme, Jenifer Kachik, Ryan Ward, and Crystal Saldana brought
13 their phones to Verizon and AT&T stores, but they were not informed by the associates or Apple
14 that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of their phones.
15 89. Plaintiffs never rooted their phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
16 system software. Plaintiffs used and maintained their phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
17 consumer.
19 90. Plaintiff Patty Burriss purchased a new iPhone 7 at a Verizon location in or around
20 Spring, South Carolina for approximately $699.99, paid monthly in 2016. Charlene Lowery
21 purchased a new iPhone 6 at a Sprint location in or around Greer, South Carolina for approximately
22 $699.99, paid monthly in 2014. The fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable
23 flagship phone with high performance was material to Plaintiffs Patty Burriss and Charlene Lowery
25 91. In or around September of 2017, almost exactly after a one through four years of
26 ownership, Plaintiffs Patty Burriss and Charlene Lowery iPhones started suffering from processor
27 throttling, by becoming slow and sluggish to the point of becoming unusable.
28
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 14 of 67
1 92. Plaintiffs Patty Burriss and Charlene Lowery brought their phones to the Verizon
2 and Sprint stores, but were not informed by the associates or Apple that the iOS update would
4 93. Plaintiffs never rooted their phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
5 system software. Plaintiffs used and maintained their phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
6 consumer.
7 N. Plaintiffs Margie Cleveland, Lillie Diaz, Craig Moore, Heather Schwartz, and Andrew
8 Yashchuk (Texas)
9 94. Plaintiff Margie Cleveland, purchased a new iPhone 6 plus at an AT&T location in
10 or around Missouri, Texas for approximately $699.99, paid monthly about four years ago. Lillie
11 Diaz, purchased a new iPhone 6 at an AT&T location in or around Spring, Texas for approximately
12 $699.99, paid monthly in 2015. Craig Moore purchased an iPhone 6 at Sprint Store Conroe, Texas
13 for approximately $699.99, paid monthly in 2016. Plaintiff, Andrew Yashchuk purchased two
14 iPhone 6 Pluses. Plaintiff Heather Schwartz purchased an iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 in December,
15 2014 and 2016. The fact that Defendant advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone
16 with high performance was material to Plaintiffs Margie Cleveland, Lillie Diaz, Craig Moore,
18 95. In or around September of 2017, almost exactly after about 2 years of ownership,
19 the iPhones of Plaintiff’s Margie Cleveland, Lillie Diaz, Craig Moore, Heather Schwartz, and
20 Andrew Yashchuk iPhones started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow and
22 96. In or around Fall of 2017 and January, 2018, almost exactly after about 2 years of
23 ownership, Plaintiffs Margie Cleveland, Lillie Diaz, Craig Moore, Heather Schwartz, and Andrew
24 Yashchuk iPhones started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow and sluggish to
26 97. Plaintiffs Margie Cleveland, Lillie Diaz, Craig Moore, Andrew Yashchuk, and
27 Heather Schwartz brought their phones to Verizon and AT&T stores, but they were not informed
28 by the associates or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of their phones.
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 15 of 67
1 98. Plaintiffs never rooted their phones, or otherwise modified the original operating
2 system software. Plaintiffs used and maintained their phones in a manner typical of a reasonable
3 consumer.
5 99. Plaintiff Joshua Mosby purchased a new iPhone 6 at a Verizon location in or around
6 Williamsburg, VA for approximately $699.99, paid monthly in 2014. The fact that Defendant
7 advertised it as a premium and durable flagship phone with high performance was material to
9 100. In or around September of 2017, almost exactly after four years of ownership,
10 Plaintiff Joshua Mosby’s iPhone started suffering from processor throttling, by becoming slow and
12 101. Plaintiff Joshua Mosby brought his phone to the Verizon store, but was not informed
13 by the associates or Apple that the iOS update would result in significant throttling of his phone.
14 102. Plaintiff never rooted his phone, or otherwise modified the original operating system
15 software. Plaintiff used and maintained his phone in a manner typical of a reasonable consumer.
17 A. Apple iPhones
18 103. Apple released the Class iPhones on the following dates in the United States:
26 and prominently touted their high “desktop-class” processors, “blazing fast performance”, and
27 “most powerful chip ever in a smartphone”:
28
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 16 of 67
2 Packed with innovative new technologies, iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus include: the Apple-
designed A8 chip with second generation 64-bit desktop-class architecture for blazing fast
3
performance and power efficiency. . .
4
***
5 With second generation 64-bit desktop-class architecture, the all-new A8 chip offers faster
performance and is more energy efficient, delivering higher sustained performance with
6 great battery life. With Metal™, a new graphics technology in iOS 8, developers can take
performance of the A8 chip even further to bring console-class 3D games to iPhone. The
7
A8 chip also includes a new, powerful Apple-designed image signal processor that enables
8 advanced camera and video features.
9 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/09/09Apple-Announces-iPhone-6-iPhone-6-Plus-The-
19 ***
64-bit desktop-class architecture.
20 The A9 chip is our third-generation chip with 64-bit architecture. It sits at the cutting edge
21 of mobile chips, improving overall CPU performance by up to 70 percent compared to the
previous generation. And boosting graphics performance by up to a staggering 90 percent
22 compared to the previous generation.
24 Jan. 9, 2018)
25 iii. iPhone SE
26
iPhone SE offers exceptional performance with the same 64-bit A9 chip offered in iPhone
27 6s and iPhone 6s Plus for blazing fast speeds . . .
28 ***
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 17 of 67
5 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/03/21Apple-Introduces-iPhone-SE-The-Most-Powerful-
14 Jan. 9, 2018).
15 105. Apple’s performance claims were reinforced by benchmark speed and performance
16 tests conducted by third party testers, who published the testing results online and in print.
17 106. Defendant and authorized retailers sold iPhones, with the exception of the lower
18 priced iPhone SE, for $650 or more to millions of consumers throughout the United States,
20 107. Upon information and belief, Defendant disseminated iPhone marketing materials
22 108. Defendant marketed, promoted, and advertised the iPhones as fully functioning
23 smartphones without defects, including but not limited to any faults in the processor throttling.
24 109. Plaintiffs and Class Members were reasonably induced to purchase iPhones based
25 on Apple’s representations that the iPhone was a premium and durable flagship phone with
26 desktop-class processors.
27 B. iPhone Batteries and Processors
28 110. Apple was among the first companies to sell a smartphone with non-user-
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 18 of 67
1 replaceable lithium ion batteries. Indeed, “before the iPhone, cell phones without user-replaceable
3 innovation-is-turning-planned-obsolescence-into-planned-failure/.
4 111. Lithium ion batteries work on ion movement between the positive and negative
7 cycles, elevated temperatures and aging. Apple represents that its battery is “designed to retain up
9 https://www.apple.com/batteries/service-and-recycling/
10 113. Testing done by a leading battery manufacturer, Cadex, indicates that batteries will
11 lose on average 10 – 15 % of their capacity after 250 full discharge cycles and the batteries
12 performed as expected:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 1: Capacity drop as part of cycling. Eleven new Li-ion were tested on a Cadex
C7400 battery analyzer. All packs started at a capacity of 88–94% and decreased to 73–84%
26 after 250 full discharge cycles. The 1500mAh pouch packs are used in mobile phones.
27 http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries (last accessed
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 19 of 67
3 115. Notwithstanding the forgoing, Apple chose to equip the iPhones with non-user
4 replacement sealed lithium ion batteries. Special skills and tools, including a pentalobe screwdriver,
5 are required to replace the lithium ion batteries in iPhones. Apple also chose to not sell
6 replacement batteries directly to consumers and instead requires consumers seeking a new battery
8 116. All Apple iPhones run on a version of Apple’s iOS software. Apple’s iOS software
9 is developed, tested, and distributed by Apple through “over the air” updates, which can be
10 downloaded over Wi-Fi. When a new iOS update is released, users of iPhones receive a notification
11 on their phones, prompting them to download the iOS update. Apple does not permit iPhones to be
12 rolled back to prior versions of iOS. iOS updates are therefore permanent until Apple releases a
13 newer update.
14 117. In or around December 2016, owners of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus and 6S and 6S Plus
15 reported unexpected iPhone shutdowns that Apple attributed to being caused “primarily by older
16 batteries—spikes in power draw could make these batteries ‘deliver power in an uneven manner,’
19 118. In or around January 2017, Apple released iOS 10.2.1, but the company did not
20 mention battery issues or shutdown issues in the release notes. Id. Instead, Apple represented in an
21 on-screen message to iPhone owners that iOS 10.2.1 contained “bug fixes and improve[d] the
22 security” of iPhones. Apple’s website similarly represented that iOS 10.2.1 provided security fixes.
24 119. Apple failed to disclose that iOS 10.2.1 materially slowed down and interrupted the
28 iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus through iOS update 11.2. The release of iOS 11.2 was accompanied by
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 20 of 67
1 the following on-screen description: “iOS 11.2 introduces Apple Pay Cash to send, request and
2 receive money from friends and family with Apple Pay. This update also includes bug fixes and
3 improvements.” https://www.gottabemobile.com/5-things-to-know-about-the-ios-11-2-update/.
4 121. The following table lists the affected iPhone model, release date, throttling iOS
14 122. Apple had exclusive knowledge the impact of iOS 10.2.1 and 11.2 on the
15 performance of the iPhones, but failed to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs or putative class
16 members.
17 123. After the 10.2.1 update had been out for about a month, Apple admitted that it had
18 fixed 80 percent of the shutdown issues for iPhone 6S owners and 70% of the issues for iPhone 6
19 owners. Id.
20 124. At no time did Apple disclose that it was throttling the processor speed for iPhone 6
21 or iPhone 6S owners with older batteries.
22 125. After the update to iOS 10.2.1, many iPhone owners began to complain that they
23 were experiencing slowdowns in their phones. Id.; see also
24 https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/7inu45/psa_iphone_slow_try_replacing_your_battery/
26 126. A Reddit user who experienced such a slowdown posted a report to the iPhone
27 subreddit stating that, after experiencing slowdown on their iPhone 6s, they replaced the battery
28 with a new one and saw significant performance improvements in Geekbench benchmark testing.
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 21 of 67
1 Geekbench benchmark testing measures processor performance, and “[i]ncludes updated CPU
2 workloads and new Compute workloads that model real-world tasks and applications. Geekbench is
3 a benchmark that reflects what actual users face on their mobile devices and personal computers.”
5 127. Shortly after the publication of this Reddit post, a blog post from Geekbench
6 founder and developer John Poole addressed the controversy that had since erupted. Using his
7 access to Geekbench data from thousands of iPhones, Poole concluded that, with the release of iOS
8 10.2.1, “Apple introduced a change to limit performance when battery condition decreases past a
10 128. Poole posited that reduced iPhone performance in phones with reduced battery
11 capacity could be part of the sudden shutdown fix introduced with iOS 10.2.1, and noted that:
12 If the performance drop is due to the “sudden shutdown” fix, users will experience
reduced performance without notification. Users expect either full performance, or
13 reduced performance with a notification that their phone is in low-power mode. This fix
creates a third, unexpected state. While this state is created to mask a deficiency in
14
battery power, users may believe that the slowdown is due to CPU performance, instead
15 of battery performance, which is triggering an Apple introduced CPU slow-down. This
fix will also cause users to think, “my phone is slow so I should replace it” not, “my
16 phone is slow so I should replace its battery.” This will likely feed into the “planned
obsolescence” narrative.
17
18 Id.
19 129. Because Apple does not allow iPhone owners to revert their operating system to a
20 prior version, once an iOS update is applied, processor throttling is irreversible without
22 130. On December 28, 2017, Apple admitted to throttling iPhone’s processors, stating in
23 part that:
25 All rechargeable batteries are consumable components that become less effective as
they chemically age and their ability to hold a charge diminishes. Time and the
26
number of times a battery has been charged are not the only factors in this chemical
27 aging process.
28
20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 22 of 67
1 Device use also affects the performance of a battery over its lifespan. For example,
leaving or charging a battery in a hot environment can cause a battery to age faster.
2 These are characteristics of battery chemistry, common to lithium-ion batteries
across the industry.
3
A chemically aged battery also becomes less capable of delivering peak energy
4 loads, especially in a low state of charge, which may result in a device unexpectedly
shutting itself down in some situations.
5
Preventing unexpected shutdowns
6
About a year ago in iOS 10.2.1, we delivered a software update that improves power
7
management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone 6,
8 iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE. With the update, iOS
dynamically manages the maximum performance of some system components when
9 needed to prevent a shutdown. While these changes may go unnoticed, in some
cases users may experience longer launch times for apps and other reductions in
10 performance.
11
Customer response to iOS 10.2.1 was positive, as it successfully reduced the
12 occurrence of unexpected shutdowns. We recently extended the same support for
iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus in iOS 11.2.
13
Of course, when a chemically aged battery is replaced with a new one, iPhone
14 performance returns to normal when operated in standard conditions.
15 Recent user feedback
16 Over the course of this fall, we began to receive feedback from some users who
were seeing slower performance in certain situations. Based on our experience, we
17 initially thought this was due to a combination of two factors: a normal, temporary
performance impact when upgrading the operating system as iPhone installs new
18 software and updates apps, and minor bugs in the initial release which have since
19 been fixed.
20 We now believe that another contributor to these user experiences is the continued
chemical aging of the batteries in older iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s devices, many of
21 which are still running on their original batteries.
23 131. Apple went on to offer $29 iPhone battery replacements for $29, a $50 discount
24 from the usual $79 price. Id. Unfortunately, Apple’s reduction in price for battery replacements
25 does nothing for the Plaintiffs and putative Class Members who already replaced their phones when
28
21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 23 of 67
2 132. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals
3 and entities, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and/or 23(c)(4).
5 Nationwide Class
8 Alabama Subclass
25 Hawaii Subclass
26
All purchasers in the state of Hawaii who purchased an Apple iPhone on
27 which iOS updates 10.2.1 or 11.2 have been installed.
28
22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 24 of 67
1 Maryland Subclass
4 Massachusetts Subclass
21 Virginia Subclass
22
All purchasers in the state of Texas who purchased an Apple iPhone on
23 which iOS updates 10.2.1 or 11.2 have been installed.
24 133. The Nationwide and State Subclasses are collectively referred to hereafter as the
25 “Class.” Excluded from the Class are: (a) any Judge presiding over this action and members of their
26 immediate families; (b) Defendant and their subsidiaries and affiliates; and (c) all persons who
27 properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class.
28
23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 25 of 67
2 joinder of all Class members impractical. Moreover, the Class is composed of an easily
3 ascertainable, self-identifying set of individuals and entities that purchased iPhones. The precise
4 number of Class members can be ascertained through discovery, which includes Apple’s records.
5 The disposition of their claims through a class action will benefit both the parties and this Court.
6 135. Commonality: There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that will
7 materially advance the litigation, and these common questions predominate over any questions
8 affecting only individual Class members. Among the questions common to the Class are:
9 a. The origins and implementation of, and the justifications for, if any, Apple’s policies
11 b. Whether Apple actively concealed and/or failed to notify consumers of the processor
13 c. Whether Defendant knew of these issues but failed to disclose the problems and/or
18 herein;
20 in iPhones is unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts in the conduct of any trade
21 or commerce;
24 h. Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members overpaid for their iPhones as a
26 i. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members would have purchased their iPhones, and
27 whether they would have paid a lower price for them, had they known that it
24
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 26 of 67
1 j. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to compensatory damages, including,
2 among other things: (i) compensation for all out-of-pocket monies expended by
3 members of the Class for replacement or repair of the iPhones; (ii) the failure of
6 throttling and/or without predisposition to, and as actually manufactured and sold
7 possessing these issues; and, (iii) whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to all
9 k. Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to equitable relief,
11 136. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class, as
12 all such claims arise out of Defendant’s conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising,
13 warranting, and selling the iPhones. All of Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class
14 since Plaintiffs and all Class members were injured in the same manner by Defendant’s uniform
15 course of conduct described herein. Plaintiffs and all Class members have the same claims against
16 Defendant relating to the conduct alleged herein, and the same events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims
17 for relief are identical to those giving rise to the claims of all Class members. Plaintiffs and all Class
18 members sustained monetary and economic injuries including, but not limited to, ascertainable
19 losses arising out of Defendant’s wrongful conduct as described herein. Plaintiffs are advancing the
20 same claims and legal theories on behalf of themselves and all absent Class members.
21 137. Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
22 of the Class members and have no interests antagonistic to those of the Class. Plaintiffs have
23 retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of complex class actions including, but not limited
24 to, consumer class actions involving, inter alia, breach of warranties, product liability, product
26 138. Predominance: This class action is appropriate for certification because questions of
27 law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over questions affecting only
28 individual members.
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 27 of 67
1 139. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
2 efficient adjudication of this controversy, since individual joinder of all members of the Class is
3 impracticable. Should individual Class Members be required to bring separate actions, this Court
4 would be confronted with a multiplicity of lawsuits burdening the court system while also creating
5 the risk of inconsistent rulings and contradictory judgments. In contrast to proceeding on a case-by-
6 case basis, in which inconsistent results will magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the
7 court system, this class action presents far fewer management difficulties while providing unitary
9 CAUSES OF ACTION
10 COUNT I
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
11 (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)
12 140. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations above as if fully set forth herein.
14 142. Apple is a “merchant” as defined under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”).
16 144. Apple impliedly warranted that the iPhones were of a merchantable quality.
17 145. Apple breached the implied warranty of merchantability because the iPhones were
18 not of a merchantable quality due to the processor throttling defect and other conduct alleged
19 above.
20 146. Plaintiffs and Class members’ interactions with Apple suffice to create privity of
21 contract between Plaintiffs and Class members, on the one hand, and Defendant, on the other hand;
22 however, privity of contract need not be established nor is it required because Plaintiffs and Class
23 members are intended third party beneficiaries of contracts (including implied warranties) between
24 Apple and the retailers who sell the iPhones. Defendant’s warranties were designed for the benefit
26 147. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of said warranties, Plaintiffs and Class
27 members were injured and are entitled to damages.
28
26
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 28 of 67
3 limitations are unenforceable because Defendant knowingly sold a defective product without
5 149. The time limits contained in Defendant’s warranty period were also unconscionable
6 and inadequate to protect Plaintiffs and members of the Class. Among other things, Plaintiffs and
7 members of the Class had no meaningful choice in determining these time limitations, terms which
8 unreasonably favor Defendant. A gross disparity in bargaining power existed between Defendant
9 and Class members, as only Defendant knew or should have known that the iPhones were defective
10 at the time of sale and that the Phones would fail well before their useful lives.
11 150. Plaintiffs and Class members have complied with all obligations under the warranty
12 or otherwise have been excused from performance of said obligations as a result of Defendant’s
14 151. Defendant was provided notice of these issues by complaints lodged by consumers
15 before or within a reasonable amount of time after the allegations of the processor throttling defect
16 became public.
17 COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT,
18 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq. (“MMWA”)
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)
19
20 152. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
21 153. Plaintiffs and Class members are “consumers” within the meaning of the MMWA.
22 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).
23 154. The iPhones are “consumer products” within the meaning of the MMWA. 15 U.S.C.
24 § 2301(1).
25 155. Apple is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of the MMWA. 15 U.S.C.
26 § 2301(4)-(5).
27 156. This claim is being brought under Section 2310(d)(a) of the MMWA as a state cause
28 of action over which this Court has supplemental jurisdiction which provides a cause of action for
27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 29 of 67
1 consumers who are harmed by the failure of a warrantor to comply with a written or implied
2 warranty.
3 157. The iPhones’ implied warranties are accounted for under Section 2301(7) of the
4 MMWA, and are warranties which Apple cannot disclaim, when they fail to provide merchantable
5 goods.
6 158. As set forth herein, Apple breached their warranties with Plaintiffs and Class
7 members.
9 [T]he warrantor may not assess the consumer for any costs the warrantor or his
representatives incur in connection with the required remedy of a warranted
10 consumer product. . . . [I]f any incidental expenses are incurred because the remedy
is not made within a reasonable time or because the warrantor imposed an
11 unreasonable duty upon the consumer as a condition of securing remedy, then the
consumer shall be entitled to recover reasonable incidental expenses which are so
12 incurred in any action against the warrantor. Id.
13 160. The iPhones share a common defect in that iOS updates have caused processor
14 throttling which materially slows down the phones, rendering them sluggish and unusable.
15 161. Defendant also provided iOS updates that masked the unexpected shutdown defect’s
16 manifestation while introducing the throttling defect without disclosing same to iPhone owners.
17 162. Despite demands by Plaintiffs and the Class for Apple to pay the expenses
18 associated with diagnosing and repairing the iPhones which were borne by consumers, Apple has
19 refused to do so.
20 163. As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s breach of implied and express warranties
21 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1), Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered damages in an
23 164. At least one of the Plaintiffs and the other Class members would suffer economic
24 hardship if they returned their Phones but did not receive the return of all payments made by them.
25 Because Apple is refusing to acknowledge any revocation of acceptance and immediately return
26 any payments made, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have not reaccepted their Phones by
27 retaining them.
28
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 30 of 67
1 165. The amount in controversy for each Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ individual
2 claims meets or exceeds the sum of $25. The total amount in controversy of this action in sum
3 exceeds $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs, computed on the basis of all claims to be
5 166. Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to recover damages as a result of
7 167. Plaintiffs and Class members are also entitled to seek costs and expenses, including
9 COUNT III
VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT
10 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq. (“CFAA”)
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)
11
12 168. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
13 169. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) establishes a private cause of action
15 authorized access,” and whose prohibited access results in damage or loss in excess of $5,000. 18
19 command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a
25 171. The term “computer” means “an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or
26 other high-speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and
27 includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in
29
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 31 of 67
4 and . . . us[ing] such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not
6 174. “Loss” means “any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding
7 to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or
8 information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other
10 175. Damage means “any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a
12 176. iPhones are “computers” under the CFAA by virtue of being electronic, high speed
13 data processing devices which perform logical, arithmetic, and storage functions.
14 177. iPhones are “protected computers” under the CFAA because they are used in and
15 affect interstate and foreign commerce and communication, including through contact and
16 communication with remote servers and through personal and business usages that affect interstate
18 178. Apple knowingly and intentionally exceeded its authorized access to Plaintiffs’ and
19 Class members’ iPhones. Plaintiffs and Class members did not consent to Apple’s performance-
20 throttling software.
21 179. By exceeding its authorized access, Apple obtained and altered iPhones’ information
22 and data. Apple initiated iOS updates that, by design, prevented the iPhones from performing at
23 their maximum capacity and created the impression that the iPhone required replacement due to
24 obsolescence. These communications resulted from a single act in the form of Apple’s distribution
26 180. By implementing its iOS update, Apple knowingly caused the transmission of “a
27 program, information, code, or command ... to a protected computer” and, as a result of that
30
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 32 of 67
2 authorization, and as a result of that conduct, caused or recklessly caused damage or loss to those
4 182. As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s CFAA violations, Apple caused
5 damages and loss to Plaintiffs an Class members during a one-year period that exceed $5,000 in
6 value.
7 183. Apple’s iOS update caused damage and loss to Plaintiffs and Class members,
8 including by disabling iPhones, eliminating or impairing Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ use of
9 those iPhones, causing Plaintiffs and Class members to expend money, time, and labor to
10 investigate and try to repair their disabled iPhones, and decreasing the value of the iPhones.
11 184. Based on Apple’s violation of the CFAA, Plaintiffs and Class members seek
12 recovery of economic damages and all other relief provided for under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).
13 COUNT IV
TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
14 (On behalf of the Nationwide Class)
15 185. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
16 186. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Nationwide Class.
17 187. Apple intentionally devised and executed an iOS update that materially degraded the
18 performance of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ iPhones, and which induced Plaintiffs and Class
19 members to purchase replacement phones sooner than they would have but for Apple’s
21 aspects of the iOS update because Apple never disclosed those aspects to Plaintiffs or Class
22 members.
23 188. Apple knew that the iOS update was substantially certain to degrade the
25 189. Apple’s interference with the performance of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ phones
28 they could use their iPhones without having the performance intentionally degraded by Apple
31
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 33 of 67
2 191. Plaintiffs and Class members sustained harm as a direct and proximate result of
3 Apple’s tortious interference with their iPhones. Plaintiffs and Class members were deprived of
4 iPhones that worked as intended and the ability to use the iPhones without performance-degrading
5 throttling software. Plaintiffs and Class members accordingly seek damages in an amount to be
6 proven at trial.
7 COUNT V
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
8 (IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class and/or the Individual Subclasses)
9
10 192. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
11 193. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Nationwide Class and/or
12 individual Subclasses.
13 194. Plaintiffs and Class Members have conferred a benefit on Defendant by purchasing
14 their iPhones. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from
15 Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ iPhone purchases and out-of-pocket repairs. Retention of such
16 revenues under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable because of the fatal chip defect and
17 iOS updates which has caused injury to Plaintiffs and the Class by materially reducing the
18 functionality of their phones. Defendant’s actions caused further injuries to Plaintiffs and the Class
19 because they would not have purchased their iPhones or would have paid less for them if the true
21 195. In addition, or alternatively, Apple has benefited from increased sales of new
22 iPhones as a direct result of Plaintiffs and Class Members purchasing new iPhones when their old
25 Plaintiffs and the Class Members is unjust and inequitable, Defendant must pay restitution to
26 Plaintiffs and the Class Members for their unjust enrichment, as ordered by the Court.
27
28
32
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 34 of 67
1 COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR PRONG OF VARIOUS STATES’ UNFAIR AND
2 DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES STATUTES
(Brought by Plaintiffs Ashley Antonucci, Kristin Edgerly, Melissa Koncinsky, Sandra
3 Merola, Charles Saadiq, Ruth Beauchan, Suzanne Carter, Kelly Jankowski, Tiffany
Williams, Noelle Boehme, Jenifer Kachik, Ryan Ward, Crystal Saldana, Patty Burriss, and
4 Charlene Lowery on behalf of their respective Subclasses)
5 197. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
6 198. Plaintiffs Ashley Antonucci, Kristin Edgerly, Melissa Koncinsky, Sandra Merola,
7 Charles Saadiq, Ruth Beauchan, Suzanne Carter, Kelly Jankowski, Tiffany Williams, Noelle
8 Boehme, Jenifer Kachik, Ryan Ward, Crystal Saldana, Patty Burriss, and Charlene Lowery bring
10 199. Plaintiffs Ashley Antonucci, Kristin Edgerly, Melissa Koncinsky, Sandra Merola,
11 Charles Saadiq, Ruth Beauchan, Suzanne Carter, Kelly Jankowski, Tiffany Williams, Noelle
12 Boehme, Jenifer Kachik, Ryan Ward, Crystal Saldana, Patty Burriss, and Charlene Lowery above
13 and class members who purchased iPhones are “consumers” under their states’ unfair and deceptive
14 practices statutes.3
15 200. Defendant’s practices, acts, policies and course of conduct violated these states’
18 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiffs and members
19 of their Subclasses, among other things, that the products were premium and durable smartphones
20 with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to the
22
23
24
3
See Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110(b), et seq.; Hawaii
25 Consumer Protection Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 480-2(a), et seq; Michigan Consumer Protection
Act (“MCPA”), Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.903 et seq.; Ohio Consumer Sales Practices
26 Act, Ohio Rev. Code. § 1345.01, et seq.; Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
27 Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-2(4)(v)(vii) and (xxi), and 201-3, et seq.; South Carolina Consumer
Protection Code, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 37-1-101, et seq.
28
33
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 35 of 67
2 material facts from Plaintiffs and other members of their Subclasses – such as the processor
3 throttling defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s
4 uniform representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing
5 their iPhones.
6 c. Defendant also provided iOS updates that masked the unexpected shutdown
7 defect’s manifestation while introducing the throttling defect without disclosing same to iPhone
8 owners.
9 201. Defendant’s acts and omissions are unfair in that they (1) offend public policy; (2)
10 are immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and (3) cause substantial injury to consumers.
11 202. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their unfair conduct
13 203. As a proximate result of the above-described unfair acts, Plaintiffs and members of
14 their Subclasses: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would not otherwise have done so; (b)
15 suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase or, alternatively, the diminished
16 value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c) suffered and/or will suffer additional
17 economic losses in purchasing another smartphone; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional
19 204. As a direct and proximate result of these unfair practices, Plaintiffs and the
20 members of their state subclasses have been damaged and are entitled to recover actual damages to
21 the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at trial.
22 205. Plaintiffs and Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief, including an
23 order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its iPhones, and an
24 order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future. Plaintiffs and the
25 Subclasses also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under their
28
34
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 36 of 67
1 COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF THE SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT
2 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
(CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1791.1 & 1792)
3 (On Behalf of the California Subclass)
4 206. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
5 207. Plaintiff Halee Dion brings this Count on behalf of the California Subclass.
6 208. Plaintiff and the other Class members who purchased iPhones in California are
8 209. The iPhones are “consumer goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code
9 § 1791(a).
10 210. Apple is a “manufacturer” of the iPhones within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code
11 § 1791(j).
12 211. Defendant impliedly warranted to Plaintiff and members of the California Subclass
13 that their iPhones were “merchantable” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1(a) &
14 1792; however, the iPhones are not of the quality that a buyer would reasonably expect.
16 “implied warranty that goods are merchantable” means that the consumer goods meet each of the
17 following: (1) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; (2) are fit for the
18 ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; (3) are adequately contained, packaged, and
19 labeled; and (4) conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.
20 213. The iPhones would not pass without objection in the smartphone trade because of
21 their processor throttling defect and predisposition to failure, and/or are not fit for the ordinary
24 selling iPhones containing the processor throttling defect and that are doomed to fail and/or by
26 215. Furthermore, the defect has caused Plaintiff and members of the California
27 Subclass to not receive the benefit of their bargain.
28
35
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 37 of 67
1 216. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’ breaches of the implied warranty of
2 merchantability, Plaintiff and members of the California Subclass received goods whose defective
3 condition substantially impairs their value to consumers. Plaintiff and members of the California
4 Subclass have been damaged as a result of the diminished value of Defendant’s iPhone, the
6 217. Plaintiffs and members of the California Subclass have had sufficient direct
7 dealings with either Defendant or their agents (e.g., dealerships and technical support) to establish
8 privity of contract between Defendant on one hand, and Plaintiff and each of the members of the
9 California Subclass on the other hand. In any event, privity is not required here because Plaintiff
10 and each of the members of the California Subclass are intended third-party beneficiaries of
11 contracts (including implied warranties) between Defendant and their retailers. The retailers were
12 never intended to be the ultimate consumers of the iPhones and have no rights under the warranty
13 agreements provided with the iPhones; rather, the warranty agreements were designed for and
15 218. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1(d) & 1794, Plaintiff and the members of the
16 California Subclass are entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief, including, at their
17 election, the purchase price of their iPhones, or the overpayment or diminution in value of their
18 iPhones.
19 219. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled
21 COUNT VIII
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
22 (CAL. COM. CODE § 2314)
(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
23
24 220. Plaintiffs repeat the above allegations as if fully set forth herein
25 221. Plaintiff Halee Dion brings this Count on behalf of the California Subclass.
26 222. Defendant is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to smartphones
27 under Cal. Com. Code § 2014.
28
36
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 38 of 67
1 223. A warranty that the iPhones were in merchantable condition is implied by law in the
3 224. These iPhones, when sold and at all times thereafter, were not in merchantable
4 condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which phones are used.
5 225. The iOS update provided by Apple masked the unexpected shutdown defect’s
6 manifestation while introducing the throttling defect without disclosing same to iPhone owners.
7 226. The iPhones were thus not in merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary
9 227. Defendant was provided notice of these issues by complaints lodged by consumers
12 merchantability, Plaintiff and the members of the California Subclass have been damaged in an
14 COUNT IX
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
15 (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.) (“UCL”)
(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
16
17 229. Plaintiffs repeat and allege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein
18 230. Plaintiff Halee Dion brings this Count on behalf of the California Subclass.
19 231. The UCL proscribes acts of unfair competition, including “any unlawful, unfair or
20 fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”
21 232. Defendant’s conduct, as described herein, was and is in violation of the UCL.
22 Defendant’s conduct violates the UCL in at least the following ways: a. Knowingly and intentionally
23 concealing from Plaintiff and the members of the California Subclass the existence of the processor
24 throttling defect in the iPhones; b. Marketing the iPhones as being functional and not possessing a
25 defect that would render them useless; and c. Violating other California laws, including California
28 members of the California Subclass to purchase their iPhones. Absent these misrepresentations and
37
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 39 of 67
1 omissions, Plaintiff and the members of the California Subclass would not have purchased their
3 234. Defendant had a duty to disclose these issues because it had exclusive knowledge of
4 the defect prior to making sales of iPhones and/or providing the iOS update detailed herein, and
5 because Defendant made partial representations about the quality of the iPhones and/or the iOS
8 members of the California Subclass have suffered injury in fact, including lost money or property.
9 236. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin further unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent acts or practices by
11 237. Plaintiff requests that this Court enter such orders or judgments as may be necessary
12 to enjoin Defendant from continuing their unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive practices, and to
13 restore to Plaintiffs and the members of the California Subclass any money they acquired by unfair
14 competition, including restitution and/or restitutionary disgorgement, as provided for under CAL.
15 BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17203 & 3345; and for such other relief set forth below.
16 COUNT X
VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPUTER CRIME LAW,
17 Cal. Penal Code § 502
(On Behalf of the California Subclass)
18
19 238. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
20 239. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Halee Dion and the California Subclass.
21 240. The California Computer Crime Law prohibits knowing and unauthorized access to
23 241. iPhones are “computers” and part of a “computer network” or “computer system”
24 under this statute. While the statute does not define “computer,” it defines “computer network” as
25 “any system that provides communications between one or more computer systems and
26 input/output devices, including, but not limited to, display terminals, remote systems, mobile
27 devices, and printers connected by telecommunication facilities.” Cal. Penal Code § 502(b)(2).
38
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 40 of 67
1 support devices ... one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic instructions, input
2 data, and output data, that performs functions, including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data
3 storage and retrieval, communication, and control.” Cal. Penal Code § 502(b)(5).
6 243. Apple had “access” to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ computers, computer systems,
7 and computer networks under Cal. Penal Code § 502(b)(1) when it implemented its remote iOS
8 update.
9 244. Apple implemented this iOS update knowingly and without permission from
11 245. Through its iOS update, Apple obtained and interfered with “data” from iPhones
13 246. Through Apple’s knowing implementation of its iPhone throttling features of the
14 iOS update without Plaintiff’s and Class members’ permission, Apple violated the California
16 a. In violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 502(c)(1)-(2), Apple altered and made use
17 of iPhone data to devise and execute a scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, and to
18 wrongfully control or obtain money or property. Among other components of this scheme, Apple’s
19 iOS update materially slowed the iPhones’ performance, creating the impression that the iPhones
20 were damaged, obsolete, or otherwise required replacement. Apple deployed this performance-
21 throttling features to induce Plaintiff and Class members to purchase new iPhones.
23 used computer services, and added, altered, and damaged iPhones’ data, programs, or software.
24 c. By implementing its iOS update and throttling iPhones, Apple caused the
25 disruption and denial of computer services to authorized users, such as Plaintiffs and Class
28 Computer Crime Law, Plaintiffs and Class members have been damaged in an amount to be
39
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 41 of 67
1 determined at trial. Under Cal. Penal Code §§ 502(e)(1) and (2), Plaintiff and Class members are
3 COUNT XI
VIOLATION OF ALABAMA’S DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“ADTPA”)
4 Ala. Code. § 8-19-1, et seq.
(On Behalf of the Alabama Class)
5
6 248. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
7 249. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Khendle Williams, and the Alabama
8 Class.
11 252. The iPhones are “goods” within the meaning of Ala. Code. § 8-19-3(3).
12 253. Defendant was engaged in “trade or commerce” within the meaning of Ala. Code.
13 § 8-19-3(8).
15 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiff and members of
16 the Alabama Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
17 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
19 255. Defendant also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted material
20 facts from Plaintiff and other members of the members of the Alabama Subclass – such as the
21 processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment manifestation of
22 the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform
23 representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing and/or
25 256. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
28 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
40
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 42 of 67
1 services.
3 Plaintiffs and members of the Alabama Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
4 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
5 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
6 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
7 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
9 259. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiffs
10 and the members of the Alabama Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover the
11 greater of: (1) actual damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an
12 amount to be proven at trial and (2) statutory damages in the amount of $100 for each Plaintiff and
14 260. Plaintiff and Alabama Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
15 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
16 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
17 Plaintiff and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
18 the ADTPA.
19 261. Plaintiff presently does not claim the relief sought above pursuant to Ala. Code § 8-
20 19-10(e), until Plaintiffs’ counsel, on behalf of Plaintiff Khendle Williams, and the Alabama Class,
21 serve Defendant with notice of the alleged violations of the CCPA relating to the iPhones
22 purchased by Plaintiff and Class Members, and demanding that Defendant corrects or agrees to
23 correct the actions described therein. If Defendant fails to do so, Plaintiff seeks all damages and
25 COUNT XII
VIOLATION OF ARIZONA’S CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (“ACFA”)
26 A.R.S. § 44-1522, et seq.
(On Behalf of the Arizona Subclass)
27
28 262. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
41
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 43 of 67
1 263. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Trent Young and Gene Schlaefer, and
4 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiffs and members
5 of the Arizona Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
6 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
8 265. Defendant also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted material
9 facts from Plaintiffs and other members of the members of the Arizona Subclass – such as the
10 processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment manifestation of
11 the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform
12 representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing and/or
14 266. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
16 267. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
17 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
18 services.
20 Plaintiffs and members of the Arizona Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
21 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
22 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
23 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
24 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
26 269. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiffs
27 and the members of the Arizona Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual
28 damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at
42
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 44 of 67
1 trial.
2 270. Plaintiffs and Arizona Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
3 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
4 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
5 Plaintiffs and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
6 the ADTPA.
7 COUNT XIII
VIOLATION OF ARKANSAS’ DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“ADTPA”)
8 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107(a)(1)(10) and 4-88-108(1)(2), et. seq.
(On Behalf of the Arkansas Subclass)
9
10 271. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
11 272. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Cynthia Stacy, and the Arkansas
12 Subclass.
14 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiff and members of
15 the Arkansas Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
16 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
18 274. Defendant also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted material
19 facts from Plaintiff and other members of the members of the Arkansas Subclass – such as the
20 processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment manifestation of
21 the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform
22 representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing and/or
24 275. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
26 276. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
27 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
28 services.
43
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 45 of 67
2 Plaintiff and members of the Arkansas Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
3 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
4 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
5 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
6 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
8 278. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiff
9 and the members of the Arkansas Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual
10 damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at
11 trial.
12 279. Plaintiff and Arkansas Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
13 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
14 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
15 Plaintiff and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
16 the ADTPA.
17 COUNT XIV
VIOLATION OF HAWAII’S DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“HDTPA”)
18 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 481 A-3(a)(5), (7) and (12), et seq.
(On Behalf of the Hawaii Subclass)
19
20 280. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
21 281. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Ruth Beauchan, and the Hawaii
22 Subclass.
24 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiff and members of
25 the Hawaii Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable smartphones
26 with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to the
27 marketing and sale of the product.
28
44
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 46 of 67
1 283. Defendant also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted material
2 facts from Plaintiff and other members of the members of the Hawaii Subclass – such as the
3 processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment manifestation of
4 the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform
5 representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing and/or
7 284. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
9 285. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
10 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
11 services.
13 Plaintiff and members of the Hawaii Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
14 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
15 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
16 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
17 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
19 287. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiffs
20 and the members of the Hawaii Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual
21 damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at
22 trial.
23 288. Plaintiff and Hawaii Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
24 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
25 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
26 Plaintiff and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
27 the HDTPA.
28
45
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 47 of 67
1 COUNT XV
VIOLATION OF HAWAII’S CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (“HCPA”)
2 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 480-2(a), et. seq.
(On Behalf of the Hawaii Subclass)
3
4 289. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
5 290. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Ruth Beauchan, and the Hawaii
6 Subclass.
8 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiff and members of
9 the Hawaii Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable smartphones
10 with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to the
12 292. Defendant also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted material
13 facts from Plaintiff and other members of the members of the Hawaii Subclass – such as the
14 processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment manifestation of
15 the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform
16 representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing and/or
18 293. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
20 294. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
21 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
22 services.
24 Plaintiff and members of the Hawaii Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
25 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
26 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
27 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
28
46
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 48 of 67
1 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
3 296. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiff
4 and the members of the Hawaii Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual
5 damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at
6 trial.
7 297. Plaintiff and Hawaii Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
8 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
9 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
10 Plaintiff and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
11 the HCPA.
12
COUNT XVI
13 VIOLATION OF THE DECEPTION PRONG OF ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND
DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE ACT (“IFCA”) (815 ILCS 505, et seq.)
14 (Brought on behalf of the Illinois Subclass)
15 298. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
16 299. Plaintiff Getzler brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Illinois Subclass.
17 300. Plaintiff and class members who purchased iPhones are “consumers” under the
18 IFCA.
19 301. Defendant’s practices, acts, policies and course of conduct violated the IFCA in that:
21 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiff and members of
22 the Illinois Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable smartphones
23 with high performance and/or that the iOS update would improve the performance of smartphones
24 when in fact would foment the manifestation of the defect. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in
28 the processor throttling defect and/or that the iOS update would foment the manifestation of the
47
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 49 of 67
1 defect – – intending or knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s
2 uniform representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing
4 302. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
6 303. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
7 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and/or profits from
10 Plaintiff and members of the Illinois Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
11 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
12 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
13 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
14 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
16 305. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiff
17 and the members of the Illinois Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual
18 damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at
19 trial.
20 306. Plaintiff and Illinois Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
21 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
22 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
23 Plaintiff and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
24 IFCA.
25 COUNT XVII
MARYLAND BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY)
26 (IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
(Brought on behalf of the Maryland Subclass)
27
28 307. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
48
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 50 of 67
1 308. Plaintiffs Dennis Johnson and Kelly Schulze (for the remainder of this section,
2 “Plaintiffs”) bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Maryland Subclass.
3 309. As detailed herein, iPhones are not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
4 goods are used.” Specifically, Plaintiff’s iPhone ceased to function after less than two years of
6 flagship phones with high-end and operational features, as described above. See Md. Code Ann.,
9 because it was not “conspicuous”, insofar as it was buried in the box that contained the phones of
10 Plaintiffs and the members of the Maryland Subclass. The durational limitation of the implied
11 warranty of merchantability is also ineffective because it was not “conscionable”, insofar as Apple
12 maintained far superior bargaining power and knowledge as the world-wide leading manufacturer
14 311. Plaintiffs and members of the Maryland Subclass would not have purchased their
15 iPhones or would have paid less for them had they known the true defective nature of the iPhones,
16 and specifically their processor throttling defect causing them to fail well before the end of their
17 useful lifespans.
18 312. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and members of the Maryland Subclass would not have
19 updated their iPhones with the iOS update detailed herein that foments the manifestation of the
20 defect, when said update was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.
21 313. As a result of Defendant’s breach of warranty, Plaintiffs and the members of the
22 Maryland Subclass have been damaged in the amount of the purchase price or, in the alternative,
23 the diminished value of their iPhones and any consequential damages resulting from their
25
COUNT XVIII
26 (VIOLATION OF THE DECEPTION PRONG OF THE MARYLAND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT (MD. CODE COM. LAW §§ 13-101, et seq.)
27 (Brought on behalf of the Maryland Subclass)
28 314. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
49
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 51 of 67
1 315. Plaintiffs Dennis Johnson and Kelly Schulze (for the remainder of this section,
2 “Plaintiffs”) bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Maryland Subclass.
3 316. Apple, Plaintiffs and the members of the Maryland Subclass are “persons” within
5 317. Defendant’s practices, acts, policies and course of conduct violated the Maryland
6 Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Com. Law § 13-101, et seq., in that:
8 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiffs and members
9 of the Maryland Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
10 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
13 material facts from Plaintiffs and other members of the members of the Maryland Subclass – such
14 as the processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment
15 manifestation of the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and
16 Defendant’s uniform representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality
18 318. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
20 319. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
21 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
22 services.
24 Plaintiffs and members of the Maryland Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they
25 would not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of
26 purchase or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect;
27 (c) suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or
28
50
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 52 of 67
1 out of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to
3 321. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiffs
4 and the members of the Maryland Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual
5 damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at
6 trial.
7 322. Plaintiffs and Maryland Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
8 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
9 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
10 Plaintiffs and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
12
COUNT XIX
13 VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR PRONG OF THE MARYLAND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT (MD. CODE COM. LAW §§ 13-101, et seq.)
14 (Brought on behalf of the Maryland Subclass)
15 323. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
16 324. Plaintiffs Dennis Johnson and Kelly Schulze (for the remainder of this section,
17 “Plaintiffs”) bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Maryland Subclass.
18 325. Apple, Plaintiffs and the members of the Maryland Subclass are “persons” within
20 326. Defendant’s practices, acts, policies and course of conduct violated the Maryland
21 Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Com. Law § 13-101, et seq., in that:
23 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiffs and members
24 of the Maryland Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
25 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
28 material facts from Plaintiffs and other members of the members of the Maryland Subclass – such
51
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 53 of 67
1 as the processor throttling defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and
2 Defendant’s uniform representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality
6 327. Defendant’s acts and omissions resulted in a substantial injury that is not
7 outweighed by any countervailing benefits to the consumer or to competition that the practice
8 produces and is not the type of injury that a consumer could reasonably have avoided.
9 328. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their unfair conduct
10 in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and/or paid repair services.
12 Plaintiffs and members of the Maryland Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they
13 would not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of
14 purchase or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect;
15 (c) suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or
16 paid repair services; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
18 330. As a direct and proximate result of these unfair practices, Plaintiffs and the
19 members of the Maryland Subclass have been damaged and are entitled to recover actual damages
20 to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at trial.
21 331. Plaintiffs and Maryland Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
22 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
23 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
24 Plaintiffs and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
52
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 54 of 67
1 COUNT XX
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER
2 PROTECTION ACT (“MCPA”), (MICHIGAN COMP. LAWS ANN. § 445.903 et seq.)
(Brought on behalf of the Michigan Subclass)
3
4 332. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
5 333. Plaintiff Charles Saadiq (for the remainder of this section, “Plaintiff”) brings this
6 claim individually and on behalf of the Michigan Subclass under the “deceptive conduct” branch of
7 the MCPA.
8 334. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant was a “person” engaged in “trade or
10 335. Defendant’s practices, acts, policies and course of conduct violated the MCPA,
13 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiff and members of
14 the Pennsylvania Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
15 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
18 material facts from Plaintiff and other members of the members of the Pennsylvania Subclass –
19 such as the processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment
20 manifestation of the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and
21 Defendant’s uniform representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality
23 336. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
25 337. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
26 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
27 services.
28
53
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 55 of 67
2 Plaintiff and members of the Michigan Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
3 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
4 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
5 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
6 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
8 339. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiff
9 and the members of the Michigan Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover the
10 greater of (a) actual damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an
11 amount to be proven at trial and (b) statutory damages in the amount of $100 for each Plaintiff and
13 340. Plaintiff and Michigan Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
14 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
15 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
16 Plaintiff and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
18 COUNT XXI
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
19 (On Behalf of the Michigan Subclass)
20 341. Plaintiffs repeat the above allegations as if fully set forth herein
21 342. Plaintiffs Charles Saadiq brings this Count on behalf of the Michigan Subclass.
22 343. The iPhones are “goods” withing the meaning of Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.
23 § 440.2314.
24 344. Defendant is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to smartphones under
26 345. A warranty that the iPhones were in merchantable condition is implied by law in the
27 instant transactions.
28
54
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 56 of 67
1 346. These iPhones, when sold and at all times thereafter, were not in merchantable
2 condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which phones are used.
3 347. The iOS update provided by Apple masked the unexpected shutdown defect’s
4 manifestation while introducing the throttling defect without disclosing same to iPhone owners.
5 348. The iPhones were thus not in merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary
7 349. Defendant was provided notice of these issues by complaints lodged by consumers
10 merchantability, Plaintiff and the members of the Michigan Subclass have been damaged in an amount
11 to be proven at trial.
12
COUNT XXII
13 DECEPTIVE CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES
PRACTICES ACT (“OCSPA”)
14 Ohio Rev. Code. § 1345.01, et seq.
(On Behalf of the Ohio Subclass)
15
16 351. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
17 352. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Suzanne Carter, Kelly Jankowski, and
19 353. At all times relevant to this suit, Apple was a “supplier,” as defined in the Ohio
21 354. At all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiffs and the Ohio Class members were
22 “consumers,” as defined in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.01.
23 355. As a result of placing a defective product into the stream of commerce, Apple has
24 breached its implied warranty in tort, which is a deceptive act as defined in Ohio Rev. Code §
25 1345.09(B).
26 356. Defendant engaged in other deceptive acts in or affecting commerce, through their
27 advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiffs and members of the Ohio
28 Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable smartphones with high
55
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 57 of 67
1 performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to the marketing and sale
2 of the product.
3 357. Defendant also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted material
4 facts from Plaintiffs and other members of the members of the Ohio Subclass – such as the
5 processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment manifestation of
6 the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform
7 representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing and/or
9 358. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
11 359. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
12 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
13 services.
14 360. The Ohio Attorney General has made available for public inspection prior state
15 court decisions which have held that acts and omissions similar to kinds alleged in this Complaint,
16 including, but not limited to, the concealment and/or non-disclosure of a dangerous defect,
17 constitute deceptive sales practices in violation of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act. These
24 e. Borror v. MarineMax of Ohio, No. OT-06-010, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 525
(Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2007) (OPIF #10002388);
25
f. State ex rel. Jim Petro v. Craftmatic Organization, Inc. (OPIF #10002347);
26
g. Mark J. Cranford, et al. v. Joseph Airport Toyota, Inc. (OPIF #10001586);
27
h. State ex rel. William J. Brown v. Harold Lyons, et al. (OPIF #10000304);
28
56
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 58 of 67
4 l. Walls v. Harry Williams dba Butch’s Auto Sales, (OPIF #10001524); and,
6 361. Apple committed these and other deceptive acts in connection with the marketing
9 Plaintiffs and members of the Ohio Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would not
10 otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase or,
11 alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c) suffered
12 and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out of
13 pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
15 363. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiffs
16 and the members of the Ohio Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual
17 damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at
18 trial.
19 364. Plaintiffs and Ohio Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
20 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
21 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
22 Plaintiffs and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
24 COUNT XXIII
(VIOLATIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND
25 CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (“UTPCPL”), 73 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 201-1 et seq.)
(Brought on behalf of the Pennsylvania Subclass)
26
27 365. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
28 366. Plaintiffs Noelle Boehme, Jenifer Kachik, Ryan Ward, and Crystal Saldana (for the
57
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 59 of 67
1 remainder of this section, “Plaintiffs”) bring this claim individually and on behalf of the
2 Pennsylvania Subclass.
3 367. Defendant’s practices, acts, policies and course of conduct violated the UTPCPL, §
4 201-3 in that:
6 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiffs and members
7 of the Pennsylvania Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
8 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
11 material facts from Plaintiffs and other members of the members of the Pennsylvania Subclass –
12 such as the processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment
13 manifestation of the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and
14 Defendant’s uniform representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality
16 368. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
18 369. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
19 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
20 services.
22 Plaintiffs and members of the Pennsylvania Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they
23 would not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of
24 purchase or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect;
25 (c) suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or
26 out of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to
27 the processor throttling defect.
28 371. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiffs
58
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 60 of 67
1 and the members of the Pennsylvania Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover the
2 greater of (a) actual damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an
3 amount to be proven at trial and (b) statutory damages in the amount of $100 for each Plaintiff and
5 372. Plaintiffs and Pennsylvania Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
6 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
7 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
8 Plaintiffs and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
10
COUNT XXIV
11 VIOLATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA’S CONSUMER
PROTECTION CODE (“SCCPA”)S.C. Code. Ann. §§ 37-1-101, et. seq.
12 (On Behalf of the South Carolina Subclass)
13 373. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
14 374. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Patty Purriss and Charlene Lowery, and
17 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiffs and members
18 of the South Carolina Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
19 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
21 376. Defendant also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted material
22 facts from Plaintiffs and other members of the members of the South Carolina Subclass – such as
23 the processor throttling defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment manifestation
24 of the defect – knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform
25 representations concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing and/or
59
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 61 of 67
1 378. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
2 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
3 services.
5 Plaintiffs and members of the South Carolina Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they
6 would not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of
7 purchase or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect;
8 (c) suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or
9 out of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to
11 380. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiffs
12 and the members of the South Carolina Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover
13 actual damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be
14 proven at trial.
15 381. Plaintiffs and South Carolina Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable
16 relief, including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing
17 its iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the
18 future. Plaintiffs and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief
20
COUNT XXV
21 TEXAS BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
(IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
22 (Brought on behalf of the Texas Subclass)
23 382. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
24 383. Plaintiffs Margie Cleveland, Lillie Diaz, Craig Moore, Andrew Yashchuk, and
25 Heather Schwartz bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Texas Subclass.
26 384. As detailed herein, iPhones are not “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
27 goods are used.” Specifically, Plaintiffs’ iPhones ceased to function after less than two years of
60
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 62 of 67
1 flagship phones with high-end and operational features, as described above. See Tex. Bus. & Com.
2 Code § 2-104.
3 385. Apple is a “merchant” within the meaning of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2-104 with
6 because it was not “conspicuous”, insofar as it was buried in the box that contained the phones of
7 Plaintiffs and the members of the Maryland Subclass. The durational limitation of the implied
8 warranty of merchantability is also ineffective because it was not “conscionable”, insofar as Apple
9 maintained far superior bargaining power and knowledge as the world-wide leading manufacturer
11 387. Plaintiffs and members of the Texas Subclass would not have purchased their
12 iPhones or would have paid less for them had they known the true defective nature of the iPhones,
13 and specifically their processor throttling defect causing them to fail well before the end of their
14 useful lifespans and/or that the iOS update would foment the defect.
15 388. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and members of the Texas Sublcass would not have updated
16 their iPhones with the iOS update detailed herein that foments the manifestation of the defect, when
17 said update was not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.
18 389. As a result of Defendant’s breach of warranty, Plaintiffs and the members of the
19 Texas Subclass have been damaged in the amount of the purchase price or, in the alternative, the
20 diminished value of their iPhones and any consequential damages resulting from their purchases.
21 COUNT XXVI
VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
22 (“TDTPA”) (TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §§ 17.41, et seq.)
(Brought on behalf of the Texas Subclass)
23
24 390. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
25 391. Plaintiffs Margie Cleveland, Lillie Diaz, Craig Moore, Andrew Yashchuk, and
26 Heather Schwartz bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Texas Subclass.
27 392. Plaintiffs and class members who purchased iPhones are “consumers” under the
28 TDTPA.
61
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 63 of 67
1 393. Defendant’s practices, acts, policies and course of conduct violated the TDTPA in that:
3 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiffs and members
4 of the Texas Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
5 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
8 facts from Plaintiffs and other members of the members of the Texas Subclass – such as the
9 processor throttling defect and/or that the iOS update would foment manifestation of the defect –
10 knowing that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform representations
11 concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality and/or Defendant’s representations
12 regarding the improvement of the iOS updates in purchasing and/or updating their iPhones.
13 394. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
15 395. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
16 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and/or paid repair
17 services.
19 Plaintiffs and members of the Texas Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
20 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
21 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
22 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
23 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
25 397. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiffs and
26 the members of the Texas Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual damages to
27 the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at trial.
28
62
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 64 of 67
1 398. Plaintiffs and Texas Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
2 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
3 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
4 Plaintiffs and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
5 TDTPA.
6 399. For those Texas Subclass Members who wish to rescind their purchases, they are
7 entitled under § 17.05(b)(4) to rescission and other relief necessary to restore any money or
8 property that was acquired from them based on violations of the TDTPA.
9 400. Plaintiffs presently does not claim the relief sought above pursuant to Tex. Bus.
10 Com. Code § 17.505, until Plaintiffs’ counsel, on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Texas Subclass, serve
11 Defendant with notice of its alleged violations of the TDTPA relating to the iPhones purchased by
12 Plaintiffs and the Texas Subclass Members, and demanding that Defendant correct or agree to
13 correct the actions described above therein. If Defendant fails to do so, Plaintiffs seeks all damages
14 and relief to which Plaintiffs and the Texas Subclass are entitled.
15 COUNT XXVII
VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA’S CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (“VCPA”)
16 Va. Code. Ann. § 59.1-200(A)(5)(6) and (14), et. seq.
(On Behalf of the Virginia Subclass)
17
18 401. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.
19 402. This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Joshua Mosby, and the Virginia
20 Subclass.
22 through their advertisements and packaging of iPhones, by representing to Plaintiff and members of
23 the Virginia Subclass, among other things, that the products were premium and durable
24 smartphones with high performance. Such pattern of conduct was uniform in nature with respect to
26 404. Defendant also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted material
27 facts from Plaintiff and other members of the Virginia Subclass – such as the processor throttling
28 defect and/or that iOS update detailed herein would foment manifestation of the defect – knowing
63
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 65 of 67
1 that consumers would rely on the advertisements and Defendant’s uniform representations
2 concerning the iPhone’s high performance and functionality in purchasing and/or updating their
3 iPhones.
4 405. Defendant’s acts and omissions possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead or
6 406. Until the present, Defendant knowingly accepted the benefits of their deception and
7 improper conduct in the form of profits from the increased sale of the iPhone and paid repair
8 services.
10 Plaintiff and members of the Virginia Subclass: (a) purchased and used iPhones when they would
11 not otherwise have done so; (b) suffered economic losses consisting of the iPhone cost of purchase
12 or, alternatively, the diminished value of the iPhones with the processor throttling defect; (c)
13 suffered and/or will suffer additional economic losses in purchasing another smartphone and/or out
14 of pocket repair costs; and (d) suffered and will suffer additional economic losses incidental to the
16 408. As a direct and proximate result of these deceptive commercial practices, Plaintiff
17 and the members of the Virginia Subclass have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual
18 damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action rules, in an amount to be proven at
19 trial.
20 409. Plaintiff and Virginia Subclass Members also seek appropriate equitable relief,
21 including an order requiring Apple to adequately disclose and remediate the defect plaguing its
22 iPhones, and an order enjoining Apple from incorporating the defect into its phones in the future.
23 Plaintiff and the Class also seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under
24 the VCPA.
64
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 66 of 67
Case 3:18-cv-00440-LB Document 1 Filed 01/19/18 Page 67 of 67
1
Daniel C. Levin, Esquire *
2 Charles E. Schaffer, Esquire
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
3
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
4 Philadelphia, PA 19102
Tel: (215) 592-1500
5 Fax: (215) 592-4663
6 Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esquire*
Jason S. Rathod, Esquire*
7
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
8 412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
Washington, DC 20002
9 Tel: (202) 470-3520
10 D. Aaron Rihn, Esquire *
11 ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
12 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
Tel: (412) 281-7229
13 Fax: (412) 281-4229
14 Russ Herman, Esquire*
15 Stephen Herman, Esquire*
HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
16 820 O’Keefe Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
17 Tel: (504) 581-4892
Fax: (504) 561-6024
18
28
66
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT