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
Breach of Warranty

In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation

Published: Aug. 21, 2020 | Result Date: May 27, 2020 | Filing Date: Jul. 2, 2018 |

Case number: 8-MD-2827-EJD Settlement –  $310,000,000

Judge

Edward J. Davila

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Laurence D. King
(Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP)

Mark C. Molumphy
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)

Joseph W. Cotchett Jr.
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)


Defendant

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Richard J. Doren
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Christopher Chorba
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Rachel S. Brass
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Timothy W. Loose
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Diana M. Feinstein
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)


Facts

Plaintiffs filed several class action lawsuits on behalf of customers who purchased, owned, used, or leased one or more of Apple's Devices. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant Apple Inc., for fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions, and other unlawful and unfair business practices.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended Defendant Apple admitted that they participated in one of the largest consumer frauds in history, which affected millions of mobile devices across the globe. Plaintiffs contended their iPhones suddenly started shutting down, despite the fact that the batteries were more than 30 percent charged, and that Apple did not disclose the details of certain software updates that attempted to mitigate these shutdowns.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied Plaintiffs' contentions and contended its actions were designed to prolong the life of the devices. The court dismissed all of Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment/omissions claims with prejudice, as well as Plaintiffs' claims that the devices were "defective," leaving only certain "computer intrusion" claims. Defendant also contended Plaintiffs' remaining claims lacked merit.

Result

Defendant agreed to settle and as part of the agreement Plaintiffs, and those part of the class were eligible for an estimated $25 per eligible device (certain iPhone devices that downloaded the relevant software updates). The agreement provides for the payment of all claims actually made by eligible class members, with a minimum payment of $310 million.


#135286

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

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