Case No.: 11-MD-02250-LHKORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
dismiss. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ claims against the Mobile Industry Defendants for violations of the Stored Communications Act, violations of the California Constitutional right to privacy,violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, conversion, and unjust enrichment aredismissed. Plaintiffs’ claims against Apple for violations of the Stored Communications Act,violations of the Wiretap Act, violations of the California Constitutional right to privacy,negligence, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, conversion, and unjustenrichment are dismissed. For the reasons set forth in Section III.D., these claims are dismissedwith prejudice. Plaintiffs’ claims against Apple for violations of the Consumer Legal RemediesAct and the Unfair Competition Law survive Apple’s motion to dismiss.
BACKROUNDA. Factual Background
Unless otherwise noted, the following allegations are taken from the AmendedConsolidated Complaint and are presumed to be true for purposes of ruling upon Defendants’motions to dismiss. Generally speaking, Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint assertsclaims with respect to two separate putative classes of individuals and challenges two separateaspects of the iDevices used by Plaintiffs.
The iDevice Class
iDevices enable users to download apps via Apple’s “App Store” application and website.First Amended Consolidated Complaint (“AC”) ¶ 86. Apple exercises significant control over theapps that are available in its store.
¶¶ 123-126. Apple’s App Store has set Apple products apartfrom Apple’s competitors: “[i]n the post 3G 2.0 iOS era, the success of Apple’s iPhones sales [sic]is inextricably linked to consumers’ access to its App Store.”
. ¶ 86. Apple represents to users of the App Store that it “takes precautions—including administrative, technical, and physicalmeasures—to safeguard your personal information against theft, loss, and misuse, as well asagainst unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, and destruction.”
The Court refers to the “iDevice Class” and the “Geolocation Class” even though these classeshave not been certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Any reference to “classes”within this Order is merely for ease of discussion and is not intended to imply a position regardingwhether either class would be certifiable under the federal rules.
Case5:11-md-02250-LHK Document69 Filed06/12/12 Page2 of 44