In Re Apple Processor Litigation
Published: Feb. 22, 2019 | Result Date: Jan. 2, 2019 | Filing Date: Jan. 8, 2018 |Case number: 5:18-cv-00147-EJD Verdict – Defense
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Matthew D. Pearson
(Berman Tabacco)
Todd A. Seaver
(Berman Tabacco)
A. Chowning Poppler
(Berman Tabacco)
Sarah K. McGrath
(Berman Tabacco)
Vincent Briganti
(Lowey Dannenberg)
Christian P. Levis
(Lowey Dannenberg PC)
Randall S. Newman
(Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP)
Defendant
Matthew Rawlinson
(Latham & Watkins LLP)
Arman Zahoory
(Latham & Watkins LLP)
Michael H. Rubin
(Latham & Watkins LLP)
Mark S. Mester
(Latham & Watkins LLP)
Kathleen P. Lally
(Latham & Watkins LLP)
Facts
Anthony Bartling filed a class action against Apple in relation to security vulnerabilities known as Spectre and Meltdown.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that Apple Processors exposed users to two security risks known as Spectre and Meltdown. Plaintiffs additionally contended that to prevent Meltown, users would have to apply a software patch that will slow down the processor speed. Moreover, there is no software patch for Spectre. Plaintiffs claimed that Apple knew of the design defect and admitted it released an update to its software to address this problem. Similarly, plaintiffs claimed that Apple did not disclose the problem or repair it.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Apple contended that plaintiffs have not alleged an injury-in-fact, and therefore, lacked standing.
Result
The court granted Apple's motion to dismiss with leave to amend finding that the users failed to show that they were harmed. Apple released findings that concluded that Meltdown did not result in reduction of Apple's mobile operating system and that the software updates did not impact speed.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390