reasonable consumers might not know just how big Apple iOS 8 is

Orshan v. Apple Inc. 2018 WL 1510202, No. 14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D.
Cal. Mar. 27, 2018)
The plaintiffs bought iPhones and iPads with 16 GB capacity running
earlier versions of iOS, which they later upgraded to iOS 8, which used
anywhere from 18.1%-23.1% (2.9-3.7 GB) of the capacity and made it unavailable
for personal storage. They alleged that, had they known this, they “would not
have upgraded to iOS 8,” “would not have purchased the 16 GB of storage
capacity or would not have been willing to pay the same price for it.” Further,
Apple allegedly exploits this discrepancy between represented and available
capacity by selling iCloud storage subscriptions and not allowing users to use
cloud storage from other vendors. They brought the usual statutory California
The court found plaintiffs failed to state a claim, though
one theory might be repleadable.  First, it
wasn’t reasonable to think that all advertised storage capacity would be
available for personal use.  In all its
materials, Apple clarified that the “actual formatted capacity” of these
devices would be “less” than the full 16 GB. Also,
iPhones and iPads are not hard
drives; they are fully functional devices that come pre-installed with an
operating system and applications. Consumers know and expect this. No
reasonable consumer would buy an iPhone or iPad and not expect that it would
not already include this software. Although an average consumer is not an
engineer, software and computers are pervasive enough in the modern world that
a reasonable consumer would at least expect that software would require some
storage space.
Second, a reasonable consumer might not have thought that
iOS 8 would be so bulky.  Apple didn’t make specific statements about
its size either absolutely or in comparison to iOS 7.  “In addition, a reasonable consumer is not a
software engineer and would not be expected to know, as a matter of common
knowledge, how much space iOS consumes or the relative size differences between
iOS 7 and iOS 8.” However, plaintiffs didn’t sufficiently plead their claims
with particularity. Their general statements about deceptiveness didn’t let
Apple pinpoint which of its statements, or its materials containing omissions,
gave rise to plaintiffs’ alleged expectations.

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s