Thomas M. Reilly v. Apple Inc.
Published: Jun. 24, 2022 | Result Date: Apr. 25, 2022 | Filing Date: Jun. 15, 2021 |Case number: 3:21-cv-04601-EMC Bench Decision – Defense
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Omero Banuelos
(Law Office of Omero Banuelos)
Defendant
Jason C. Lo
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
Mark A. Perry
(Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP)
Jennifer J. Rho
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)
Facts
Thomas M. Reilly developed an app called Konverti which facilitates peer-to-peer, in-person currency exchanges. Apple users must purchase and download apps for their mobile devices through the Apple Store and cannot purchase them on any other forum. Plaintiff set up an Apple developer account through their Developer Program with the hope of placing Konverti in the Apple Store. In June 2017, Konverti was placed in the Apple Store but was removed only a few weeks later. In June 2021, Reilly filed an amended complaint against Apple Inc., alleging a violation of California Unfair Competition Law and antitrust violations. The court dismissed the entire complaint but granted leave to amend. Reilly filed an amended complaint that only alleged a single violation of California Unfair Competition Law.
Contentions
PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that while Konverti was in development, Apple representatives informed plaintiff that Konverti was in full compliance with all Apple Store policies but was removed from the Store since it was an inappropriate concept and violated the policy that apps must comply with legal requirements in any location where they are made available. Plaintiff maintained that as a result of defendant's representations, he was induced to pay Apple and spend over $150,000,000 developing and marketing Konverti for more than two years since he believed his app complied with all Apple policies. Further, plaintiff alleged that he unsuccessfully appealed Konverti's removal multiple times between June 2017 and 2020 and was not aware of any security, legal, or reporting requirements triggered by Konverti. Finally, plaintiff alleged that these policies and practices were unfair and unlawful because they constituted an unlawful business act of practice under the California Business and Professions Code.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.
Result
Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint was granted with prejudice.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390