A New Jersey woman claiming that Apple failed to stop...
A New Jersey woman claiming that Apple failed to stop third-party applications from uploading users’ personal and device information without permission will get a second bite at Apple. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, Calif., granted Apple’s motion…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
to dismiss the lawsuit seeking class-action status while also granting Maria Pirozzi leave to amend her claims. The suit faults Apple for allegedly not enforcing its terms of service for app developers, letting developers upload “private address book information (including names and contact information of users’ contacts), location data, private photographs and videos without the users’ knowledge or consent when a user agrees to allow an app to access the user’s then current locations.” The Path app, for example, was caught uploading address book and calendar data without user consent in February, the suit said. Pirozzi claimed she was “induced” to buy an unidentified Apple device in September 2011, and download paid apps to it, based on Apple’s terms and promises regarding app consent rules, Rogers said. But it’s not clear from Pirozzi’s complaint whether any apps “actually uploaded” her information, the judge said (http://xrl.us/bn8b2j). “Overpaying for goods or purchasing goods a person otherwise would not have purchased based upon alleged misrepresentations by the manufacturer would satisfy the injury-in-fact and causation requirements” for standing to sue, but because Pirozzi didn’t “allege specifically which statements she found material to her decision to purchase” the device or any apps, she hasn’t suffered injury-in-fact through Apple’s alleged conduct, Rogers said. Pirozzi similarly didn’t allege that an app “actually misappropriated” her information, only that it was at “greater risk” of misappropriation through Apple’s negligence, the judge said. The plaintiff will have to provide specifics, including what harm she suffered from unauthorized tracking and whether Apple even received her information and thus profited from it, to show her standing, Rogers said, giving Pirozzi leave to amend her claims. Rogers also pooh-poohed Apple’s reliance on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as a shield for Pirozzi’s claims. Apple said it can’t be held responsible for exercising editorial discretion over which apps it approves and distributes through the App Store. But Pirozzi didn’t “solely” fault Apple for choosing which apps to distribute -- rather she wants to hold it liable for its own representations as an “information content provider,” Rogers said: The record is too “scant” to decide whether Apple is shielded by the CDA. The judge gave Pirozzi until Jan. 22 to file an amended complaint.