A California federal court judge has tossed a class action accusing Apple of making deceptive promises about the privacy afforded to users of iPhones and iPads.
The plaintiffs claimed they relied upon Apple’s representations about privacy and data collection when purchasing their phones and did not consent to having their information shared with third parties.
But none of the four putative class members established that they “read or relied on any particular Apple misrepresentation regarding privacy” prior to their purchase of the products, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh wrote. “The Court questions how one can act in reliance on a statement one does not see, read, or hear.” Judge Koh ruled that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing as well as standing under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.
The plaintiffs needed to “have seen the misrepresentations and taken some action based on what they saw – that is, plaintiffs must have actually relied on the misrepresentations to have been harmed by them,” the court said. “The evidentiary record is devoid of ‘specific facts’ to support plaintiffs’ assertions. Critically, none of the plaintiffs presents evidence that he or she even saw, let alone read and relied upon, the alleged misrepresentations.”
The court reached a similar conclusion about the geolocation claims, as the plaintiffs again failed to present “any evidence that he or she read or relied upon any alleged misrepresentations related to Location Services.”
Given the plaintiffs’ “repeated failure to provide any evidence to support the theory that they must have read or seen the alleged misrepresentations,” the court granted summary judgment to Apple.
To read the order in In re iPhone Application Litigation, click here.