Baltazar v. Apple Inc., 2011 WL 6747884 (N.D. Cal.)
Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and violation of the
UCL based on claims that Apple promised that the iPad could be used outdoors as
an e-reader and mobile internet device, when in fact the iPad overheated when it was used outdoors even within the acceptable ambient temperature range, causing it to shut down until it cooled. The court granted Apple’s motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice.
Apple ran a TV ad showing images of
the iPad being used outdoors, at least some of the time on sunny days, and
posted on its website a video showing scenes of the iPad being used outdoors
and in the sun. Plaintiffs also noted Apple’s website statement that “[r]eading the iPad is just like reading a book.”
The court rejected the breach of contract claim, which was
similar to a warranty-based claim. The
ads and specifications were insufficient to show that Apple ever claimed that
the iPad would operate without interruption under the conditions identified by
the plaintiffs. The ad on which
plaintiffs relied had seven brief scenes showing the iPad in outdoor locations,
some on a “sunny day.” But these were
only a small fraction of the approximately 30 different scenes in the 30-second
ad; they were fleeting depictions and none showed the iPad being used in direct
sunlight or for an extended period outdoors.
“The overall impression of the commercial is not that the iPad was an
outdoor product, but a mobile product. In fact, the iPad was not even turned on
in some of the scenes, but was merely being moved about handily.” The scenes
couldn’t be construed as a promise that the device will operate relentlessly
outdoors in sunlight.
Neither did Apple’s web video help. The video, clearly marked on Apple’s website
as having been created by an iPad owner, included brief scenes of the iPad
being used outdoors, including being affixed to the dashboard of a car and the
gas tank of a motorcycle. (Eric Goldman is going to wonder where the §230
analysis is here.) The Apple web page
quoted the creator’s statement that, “This is an exploration of what is
possible, not necessarily what is practical.” Apple also added a footnote,
warning “Do not attempt.” Thus, plaintiffs failed to allege that any ad
promised the particular performance to which plaintiffs claimed to be entitled.
Plaintiffs alleged that the iPad came with an express
warranty against defects in materials or workmanship under normal use, which
Apple itself defined to include operation in a place where the ambient
temperature was between 32-95 °F. The court disagreed with plaintiffs' interpretation: there was no promise
that the iPad would operate without interruption under all conditions within a
specified ambient temperature range. “To use an obvious example, one could not
conclude from the specifications that the iPad would be expected to operate in
a rain or snow storm simply because it is designed to operate at certain
ambient temperatures.”
The UCL claim also failed.
If an alleged misrepresentation wouldn’t deceive a reasonable consumer,
a claim may be dismissed on the pleadings.
As with the contract claim, the court found, a reasonable consumer
wouldn’t receive the message that the iPad would operate without interruption
in the specific environmental conditions under which it allegedly tended to
shut down. The plaintiffs alleged that
they relied on the Apple ad to conclude that the iPad would work “outdoors,” or
“under the conditions in the advertisement,” but they alleged only that it
failed to operate without interruption in a limited subset of outdoor
conditions. Also, the statement that the
iPad could be used “just like a book” was mere puffery.
From the Judge's statement on the 3rd ammended complaint: "Plaintiffs’ UCL claim fails because they did not show why a reasonable consumer would
ReplyDeletebe deceived by the allegedly misleading materials"
Surely if the plaintiff had done a survey, showing consumers the Apple ad with users enjoying their iPad outside and then done a survey - they'd have the evidence they'd need?
eg: "From the advertisement, check which places you believe the iPad can be used in:
( ) Inside in the Dark
( ) Outside in the shade
( ) Outside in direct sunlight
( ) Underwater
( ) In the shower
... etc"
From the advertisement I would have 100% ticked 'Outside in direct sunlight' .. I'm a fairly reasonable consumer and I came away with a misleading impression.
This was their 3rd attempt at a pleading ... were they barred from using survey evidence .. or are there complications?
I used this as my reference: http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0296000/296265//mnt/rails_cache/https-ecf-cand-uscourts-gov-cgi-bin-show_doc-pl-caseid-233617-de_seq_num-328-dm_id-8145017-doc_num-98.pdf
Anyway, thanks for the interesting case.
Mac