This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Consumer Law
Unfair Competition
False Advertising

Paul Orshan, Christopher Endara, and David Henderson v. Apple Inc.

Published: Dec. 14, 2018 | Result Date: Nov. 8, 2018 |

Case number: 5:14-cv-05659-EJD Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Edward J. Davila

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael A. McShane
(Audet & Partners LLP)

S. Clinton Woods
(Audet & Partners LLP)

Jon M. Herskowitz
(Baron & Herskowitz)

Charles J. LaDuca
(Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca LLP)

Amy E. Boyle
(Halunen Law)


Defendant

Matthew D. Powers
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)

Adam M. Kaplan
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)

Sarah H. Trela
(O'Melveny & Myers LLP)


Facts

California consumers Paul Orshan, Christopher Endara, and David Henderson filed suit against Apple Inc. over false advertising claims.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased their devices in reliance on the claims in defendant's website, advertisements, product packaging, and other promotional materials, that the devices came with 16 GB of storage space and they expected that capacity would be available for their personal use. Contrary to these expectations, anywhere from 2.9 to 3.7 GB was used by iOS 8 and not available to plaintiffs for personal storage. Plaintiffs alleged that had they known this, they would not have upgraded to iOS 8, and would not have purchased the 16 GB of storage capacity or would not have been willing to pay the same price for it. As such, plaintiffs alleged that defendant violated various consumer protection laws by misleading consumers.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all allegations, and contended that plaintiffs lacked specificity and did not allow defendant to pinpoint which of its representations gave rise to plaintiffs' alleged mistaken expectations that underlied their theory of deception.

Result

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims finding that they failed to state their case for how plaintiffs were misled.


#130622

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390