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.

Contracts
Breach of Warranty
Consumer Protection Act

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

Edward J. Davila

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.


#131033

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

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