Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: Apple reroutes misrepresentation claims over navigation app, (Aug 21, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Apple, Inc. successfully fended off a consumer’s false advertising claims over the information technology giant’s Apple Maps navigational app. In granting Apple’s motion to dismiss, the federal district court in San Jose determined that the iPhone and iPad user failed to state her fraud based claims with particularity, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (Minkler v. Apple, Inc., August 20, 2014, Davila, E.).

Background. After Apple Maps was launched in June 2012, consumers complained that the app mislabeled landmarks, streets, and addresses, and led to inaccurate locations. In September 2012, the company’s CEO posted a letter apologizing for the navigation app’s shortfalls and suggested that consumers use alternative apps while Apple improved Apple Maps. Consumer Nancy Minkler filed a putative class action against Apple, alleging that she was influenced to purchase an iPhone 5 and iPad based on Apple’s marketing materials describing the “innovation, accuracy, and versatility of Apple Maps.” She further asserted that she would not have purchased the iPhone 5 had she known that Apple Maps was defective. Consequently, she brought claims—in part—under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Apple moved to dismiss the complaint.

CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims. According to the court, Minkler’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims sound in fraud, as she specifically alleged that “Apple was guilty of acting with malice, oppression, or fraud.” Consequently, she was required to assert her claims with the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b).

In opposition to Apple’s motion to dismiss, Minkler argued that she sufficiently pleaded the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the misconduct alleged, as well as the time, place, and specific content of the false representations. The court disagreed, however, noting that she failed to identify any specific statement made by Apple that expressly indicates that Apple Maps would always work flawlessly and without error. In addition, Minkler failed to identify with particularity the actual defect she experienced, the court said. Rather, she only alleged that the navigation app led to “incorrect locations.” Because Minkler failed to plead Apple’s allegedly fraudulent behavior with particularity, she failed to meet the Rule 9(b) pleading standards, and her CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims were dismissed.

The case number is 5:13-CV-05332-EJD.

Attorneys: Gregory Donald Wolflick (Wolflick & Simpson) for Nancy Romine Minkler. Joseph Edward Collins (DLA Piper LLP US) for Apple, Inc.

Companies: Apple, Inc.

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews