7/31/2019 LA 349 Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/la-349-case 1/3

Vishaal Reddy

Randall

LA 349

25 April 2012

Word Count: 697

In re iPhone Application Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106865 (N.D. CA 2011)

This case was a class action suit against Apple and the “Mobile Industry Defendants.”

United States’ citizens were using Apple mobile devices that operate Apple’s”iOS” system,claim their privacy rights were violated by the Apple and the Mobile Industry Defendants, whose

“privacy violations by illegally collecting, using, and distributing iPhone, iPad, and App Store

users' personal information” (Casebook). The defendants filed motions to dismiss for several

reasons, including lack of Article III standing and the plaintiff’s consent to privacy agreements,

citing that the claim was an effort “to safeguard your personal information against theft, loss, and

misuse, as well as against unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, and destruction”

(Casebook).

Apple has a platform for purchasing applications, through their App Store. The App Store

shows users that it takes precautions to keep personal information safe and even controls whichapps are sold in the App store, maintaining that it protects users against any harm by third-party

applications. It also requires the “end-user-license-agreement” to have a clause giving them third

party beneficiary rights to enforce it on the end user. Even with the measures in place, the

plaintiffs argue that these practices allow for apps that exploit the privacy of the user, allowing

the company to find “highly personal details” (Casebook). These apps can track user content and

personal information, while storing addresses, geo-location, photographs, etc.

Furthermore, Apple’s App Store agreement does not give a reasonable customer notice

that they could be tracked and their personal information could be accessed. No specific app

developers were named as defendants, but all Mobile Industry Defendants are accused of “exceeding the scope of authorization given to them by the plaintiffs when they downloaded the

app” (Casebook). Both Apple and the Mobile Industry Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The

court turns to each of the defendant’s arguments to make its decision stating that the plaintiffs

must prove the following: (1) it has suffered an 'injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and

particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly

traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely

7/31/2019 LA 349 Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/la-349-case 2/3

7/31/2019 LA 349 Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/la-349-case 3/3

Plaintiffs also alleged that Mobile Industry Defendants gained access to personal

information by using tracking codes; however, since the apps were installed voluntarily, the

argument does not hold up. Lastly, they claim trespass to chattels, which requires the plaintiff to

show that the defendant’s acts caused irreparable injury. However, plaintiffs haven’t connected

any of this to a specific injury. With all of this evidence, the case is dismissed with leave to

amend with lack of Article III standing.