Full disclosure: My iPhone’s glass cracked when I had it in
a regular case. I now have it wrapped in
a hard shell that is itself covered with rubber. The result is thick, and I haven’t looked at
the back of the phone recently to see if it has still developed cracks, but I
live in hope. The iPhone arguably has more
aesthetic than utilitarian functionality; see also the antenna
that didn’t work without a bumper.
Anyway, Williamson’s iPhone glass cracked when it fell off a
chair a few days after he got it. He
alleged that he was one of many who suffered from the
more-fragile-than-expected glass. The
intro video from Steve Jobs “called attention” to the glass paneling and said
that Apple used glass on the “front and back for optical quality and scratch
resistance.” Jonathan Ive, Apple's
Senior Vice President of Industrial Design, also referred to the iPhone 4’s
glass housing as “comparable in strength to sapphire crystal” and 30 times
harder than plastic. A video demonstration showed a portion of the glass used
on the iPhone 4 being bent up to 30 degrees without cracking or breaking. In marketing, Apple also described the glass
as “the same type of glass used in the windshields of helicopters and high-speed
trains” and as “20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic ...
ultradurable and more scratch resistant than ever.” Its ads showed the phone being used without a
protective cover. (P.S.: don’t do
that.) Williamson alleged that many,
many consumers found that the glass was quickly scarred and broken by normal,
foreseeable use. One insurer’s study
found that the iPhone 4’s glass broke at an 82% higher rate than a prior iPhone
version. Replacements cost $199 (broken
housing) or $29 (cracked panel).
Williamson alleged that he wouldn’t have bought the iPhone 4
if he’d known that the housing was more susceptible to cracking during normal
and foreseeable use than earlier versions.
He brought warranty claims and the usual California claims.
Apple first challenged causation: the damage was caused by
the drop to the floor. The district
court didn’t have much patience for that.
Williamson alleged that Apple’s misrepresentations and omissions caused
him to buy a phone he wouldn’t otherwise have bought; the fall from the chair
caused him to realize that he might have been misled. The economic loss was the unwarranted
purchase, not the physical damage to the phone.
Apple fared better arguing that its representations were
nonactionable puffery. Jobs’ statements
that glass was used “front and back for optical quality and scratch resistance”
was “no more than a description of the phone,” not a specific commentary about
durability that could mislead a reasonable consumer. Likewise, the Ive statements about the
comparison to sapphire crystal and “30 times harder than plastic” weren’t
alleged to be misdiscriptions of the glass, assuming they were specific enough
to be non-puffery. (Why wouldn’t 30x
harder be specific?) Similarly,
Williamson didn’t allege that the demonstration of the glass flexing was
false. (What about misleading?) He didn’t allege that he specifically relied
on the Ive statements or the video clearly enough to satisfy Rule 9(b).
In addition, the court rejected the argument that ads
showing use of the iPhone 4 wihtout a cover constituted an affirmative
representation of durability. “A
‘reasonable consumer’ viewing a commercial showing the iPhone 4 in use as a
phone, but without a cover, would not be misled to believe that the iPhone 4
could withstand any particular level of impact if the phone was dropped.” (Regardless of the law, I feel like those ads
are like showing drivers not using seatbelts as they execute high-speed turns
on a closed course—there really should be some sort of “don’t try this at
home!” warning.) The ads had nothing to
do with durability—there were no allegations that any showed a phone being
dropped, unscathed.
The representations, as a whole, wouldn’t lead a reasonable
consumer to believe that the glass was indestructible (not, I think, what
plaintiff alleged, which was about ordinary use) or drop-proof because “it is a
well-known fact of life that glass can break under impact, even glass that has
been reinforced.” It’s routine to
encounter shattered windows, cracked windshields, and chipped smartphone
screens. The marketing described in the
complaint, which didn’t directly cover dropped phones, wouldn’t erase those
images from the collective experience to allow a reasonable consumer to expect
that the glass couldn’t break if dropped.
(Again, this doesn’t seem quite what plaintiff alleged: as I understand
it, the claim is that the iPhone was worse
on this front than a reasonable consumer would expect. It’s not unexpected to encounter shattered
windows, but a window that shatters when you lean against it would be
different.)
Anyway, the same problems attended the claims framed as
actionable omissions. Nowhere did Apple
allegedly say that the iPhone 4 was resistant to normal wear and tear, wouldn’t
break or crack under normal use, or might not be damaged if dropped. So the alleged omissions didn’t contradict
any affirmative statements, and Williamson didn’t sufficiently plead facts
showing a duty to disclose; among other things, he didn’t plead what was
actually known to Apple except in conclusory fashion. Alleged reports by unidentified consumers
with uncertain timing weren’t enough.
As for the warranty claims, Apple didn’t dispute that
defects in the glass could be covered by the warranty under specified
circumstances. But Williamson didn’t
successfully plead that the warranty promised damage resistance. “To the contrary, the fact that a warranty
covering the glass even exists suggests that Apple never made or reasonably
could make such a representation.” Also,
Williamson didn’t identify the purported defect in the glass, other than to say
it broke when the phone fell. But glass
can break when it’s dropped, so something more was required to allege a defect.
On Williamson’s claim for implied warranty of
merchantability, he argued that the phone wasn’t “fit for the ordinary purposes
for which such goods are used.” But the
allegation that the glass broke easily “has nothing to do with the iPhone 4's
intended use as a smartphone, which the court safely presumes includes
functions like making and receiving calls, sending and receiving text messages,
or allowing for the use of mobile applications.” The court was unwilling to conclude that an
“ordinary purpose” of a phone is to be dropped to the ground. This theory of liability would mean that the
phone wasn’t merchantable unless it was “completely resistant” to accidental
breakage or damage, and that was silly.
(I agree, which is why it doesn’t seem to me that plaintiff was making
that claim. Ordinarily resistant,
though, would be a different matter, especially since it’s hard to make and
receive calls when there’s a piece of glass poking at you, which I can again
confirm from personal experience.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment