Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 1 of 73
`
`
`
`CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
`Steven L. Nicholas (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`sln@cunninghambounds.com
`Lucy E. Tufts (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`let@cunninghambounds.com
`1601 Dauphin Street
`Mobile, AL 36604
`Telephone: (251) 471-6191
`Facsimile: (251) 479-1031
`
`KILBORN LAW, LLC
`Benjamin H. Kilborn, Jr. (admitted Pro Hac
`Vice)
`benk@kilbornlaw.com
`P.O. Box 2164
`Fairhope, AL 36533
`Telephone: (251) 929-4623
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`MORGAN & MORGAN
`COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
`Michael F. Ram (SBN 104805)
`mram@forthepeople.com
`Marie N. Appel (SBN 187483)
`mappel@forthepeople.com
`711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`Telephone: (415) 358-6913
`Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
`
`Ra O. Amen (Pro Hac Vice application
`pending)
`Ramen@forthepeople.com
`201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
`Tampa, Florida 33602
`Telephone: (813) 223-5505
`Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CHRIS SMITH, CHERYL SMITH, KAREN
`SMITHSON, JASON ROUSH, COREY
`POMROY, FRANK ORTEGA, LESLIE
`WHITE, ALBERTO CORNEA, MICHELLE
`ROGERS, JOSHUA BAYS, DEBORAH
`CLASS and AMBER JONES, individually
`and on behalf of all other similarly situated
`individuals,
`
`
`Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
` Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 2 of 73
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Chris Smith, Cheryl Smith, Karen Smithson, Jason Roush, Corey Pomroy, Frank
`
`Ortega, Leslie White, Alberto Cornea, Michelle Rogers, Joshua Bays, Deborah Class, and Amber Jones,
`
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, allege as follows against Defendant Apple,
`
`Inc.:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This action is brought on behalf of individuals who purchased First Generation (“Series
`
`0”), Series 1 through Series 6, and Series SE Apple Watches (collectively, the “Apple Watch” or
`
`“Watch”). Apple has consistently marketed its Watch as a safe wearable device designed to help
`
`consumers live safer and healthier lifestyles.
`
`2.
`
`However, the Apple Watch contains an undisclosed and unreasonably dangerous safety
`
`hazard. The Watch is a small wearable device intended to rest on a user’s wrist with no thermal or other
`
`solution to prevent and/or mitigate the danger of a detached, shattered, or cracked Watch screen
`
`resulting from the insufficient space allocated within the device for the rectangular shaped,
`
`electromagnetically charged lithium cobalt oxide battery inside a polymer pouch (the “Defect”). Despite
`
`knowing that the battery inside the Watch can suddenly swell, Apple allocated insufficient room inside
`
`the Watch for it to freely expand without affecting the Watch screen face and/or failed to incorporate a
`
`protective guard to keep it from making contact with the Watch screen face, and/or otherwise failed to
`
`prevent detachment, shattering, or cracking of the Watch screen face as described above. The swelling
`
`creates considerable upward pressure on the Watch face, causing detachment, shattering, and/or
`
`cracking of the screen through no fault of the wearer, exposing its razor-sharp edges and leading to
`
`operational failure of the Watch and/or personal injuries resulting from unintended bodily contact with
`
`the detached, shattered, or cracked screen.
`
`3.
`
`The Defect is not the normal degradation of the lithium-ion battery, but instead the
`
`placement of that battery in the above-described configuration where the battery’s expansion can cause
`
`screen damage or detachment, operationally destroy the product, and harm or potentially harm the user.
`
`4.
`
`The detached, shattered, or cracked screens are a material and unreasonably dangerous
`
`safety hazard. The screens are made either of Ion-X glass (aluminum models) or sapphire crystal glass
`
`(stainless steel and titanium models) and each has a razor-sharp edge on all four sides. Even after a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 3 of 73
`
`
`
`failure, the exposed screen remains secured to the back of the Watch (and therefore within close
`
`proximity to a consumer’s body) by means of the tiny flexible wire depicted below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`When a consumer’s body contacts the sharp edge of the detached, shattered, or cracked
`
`
`
`screen, there is substantial and material risk of serious injury, including lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and
`
`other injuries.
`
`6.
`
`The defective Watches injured Plaintiff Chris Smith and other Class members. The
`
`injury to Chris Smith caused by the detached screen of a Series 3 Apple Watch is depicted below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Apple Watch First Generation, Series 1 through Series 6, and Series SE all contain the
`
`same Defect, regardless of the model or case size.
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 2 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 4 of 73
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8.
`
`The Defect affects the core or central functionality of the Watch and often manifests
`
`during the stated express and implied warranty periods, and/or during the periods covered by Apple’s
`
`limited Screen Replacement Program (described below). The Defect can also manifest after the
`
`warranty and/or Screen Replacement Program periods.
`
`9.
`
`Since 2015, Apple has sold tens of millions of Watches with the Defect throughout the
`
`United States and knew that the Watches contain the Defect and were unmerchantable and/or not fit for
`
`their intended purpose. Nonetheless, Apple failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiffs and Class members
`
`prior to, at, and since the time of purchase.
`
`10.
`
`The Defect poses a material and unreasonable safety hazard to consumers, as it has
`
`caused many purchasers to suffer lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and/or other injuries in connection with
`
`the screens cracking, shattering and/or detaching from the body of the Watches. Notwithstanding the
`
`material and unreasonable safety hazard caused by the Defect with the Watches, Apple did not disclose
`
`the Defect to consumers.
`
`11.
`
`Further, Apple’s conduct, when confronted with the Defect, indicates that its internal
`
`policy has been to deny the existence of the Defect, claim the Defect was the result of “accidental
`
`damage” caused by consumers, and then refuse to honor its Limited Warranty on those grounds.
`
`Consumers who are refused coverage under the Limited Warranty are faced with the choice of incurring
`
`the significant expense of repairing or replacing their defective Watches.
`
`12.
`
`Apple knew that purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect the screens to
`
`function in a predictable and expected manner, and not crack, shatter, or detach from the body of the
`
`Watch during normal use. Plaintiffs and Class members have precisely that expectation. Apple was also
`
`aware that purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect that the Watches would not pose an
`
`unreasonable safety hazard, just as Plaintiffs and Class members expected. Further, Apple knew that
`
`purchasers of the Watches would reasonably expect that potential defects, including the Defect, would
`
`be covered under its Limited Warranty if they manifested themselves during the warranty period, just as
`
`Plaintiffs and other consumers expected.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs and other Class members were unaware of the Defect at the time of purchase.
`
`Had Plaintiffs and other Class members known about the Defect at the time of purchase, Plaintiffs and
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 3 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 5 of 73
`
`
`
`Class members would not have purchased a Watch, would have paid substantially less, or would have
`
`returned their Watch during their respective buyer’s remorse periods.1
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs and other Class members would purchase a Watch in the future if the devices
`
`were reasonably safe, functioned as advertised, and if the Court ordered Apple to comply with all
`
`pertinent advertising and warranty laws.
`
`15.
`
`As a result of the Defect in the Watches and the monetary costs associated with
`
`overpayment, repair, replacement, and lost use of the Watches, Plaintiffs and Class members have
`
`suffered injury in fact, incurred ascertainable loss and damages, and have otherwise been harmed by
`
`Apple’s conduct.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
`
`persons who purchased a First Generation, Series 1 through Series 6, or Series SE Apple Watch for the
`
`purpose of obtaining damages, or, if not available, then restitution, injunctive, and/or other equitable
`
`relief. More specifically, this action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection with Apple’s
`
`misconduct, including: its fraudulent omission of material facts concerning the Defect during the
`
`distribution, marketing, sale and advertisement of the Watches; violations of certain consumer protection
`
`statutes; and breach of implied warranties and warranty statutes.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class allege violations of the California Unlawful Competition Law,
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”); violations of the California Consumers Legal
`
`Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”); fraudulent omissions; violations of the Song-
`
`Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1791 et seq.; breaches of implied warranties;
`
`violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.; and violations of state law as
`
`described in more detail below.
`
`18.
`
`For clarity, neither the original Complaint nor this Amended Complaint allege causes of
`
`
`1 Apple permits consumers to return the Watch 14 days after the date of purchase.
`https://www.apple.com/shop/help/returns_refund. Best Buy permits consumers to return the Watch14
`days after the date of purchase. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/help-topics/return-exchange-
`policy/pcmcat260800050014.c?id=pcmcat260800050014. AT&T permits consumers to return the
`Watch 14 days after the date of purchase. https://www.att.com/wireless/return-policy/ (click on
`“Consumer Returns – Devices and Accessories”).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 4 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 6 of 73
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`action for any affirmative misrepresentation except to the extent that Apple’s affirmative statements
`
`created a duty to disclose facts (including, but not limited to, the existence of the Defect and resulting
`
`unreasonable safety hazard) that would have materially qualified these partial representations.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`19.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 as well as pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332(d), as the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
`
`there are more than 100 putative class members, and minimal diversity exists because many putative
`
`class members are citizens of a different state than Defendant.
`
`20.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under CAFA, which provides a viable,
`
`independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction that permits assertion of jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’
`
`Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) claims. The MMWA’s class action jurisdictional threshold,
`
`15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(3)(C), applies only to the subject-matter jurisdiction conferred by section
`
`2310(d)(1)(B) of the MMWA. A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over an MMWA claim that
`
`falls below the Act’s jurisdictional thresholds where, as here, a federal statute other than section
`
`2310(d)(1)(B) – such as CAFA – provides an independent basis for the Court’s subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction. The MMWA alternatively permits jurisdiction “in any court of competent jurisdiction in
`
`any State or the District of Columbia.” 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1)(A).
`
`21.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
`
`(“MMWA”) claims as well as over state and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
`
`because they form part of the same case and controversy and derive from a common nucleus of
`
`operative facts.
`
`22.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b)(2) because Defendant conducts its affairs in this District, is headquartered in this District, and a
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
`
`23.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because its principal place of
`
`business is in California. Additionally, Defendant is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this State
`
`because a substantial part of the events and conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ and the Class claims
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 5 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 7 of 73
`
`
`
`occurred in this State.
`
`PARTIES
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff Chris Smith is an Alabama citizen domiciled in Alabama. On or about
`
`December 25, 2017, he received a new Series 3 GPS Aluminum 42mm Apple Watch (Serial No.
`
`FH7VQBEYJ5X4) purchased by his mother, Cheryl Smith, from Best Buy in Daphne, Alabama for
`
`$359.00 plus tax.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff Cheryl Smith is an Alabama citizen domiciled in Alabama. On or about
`
`December 15, 2017, she purchased a new Series 3 GPS Aluminum 42mm Apple Watch (Serial No.
`
`FH7VQBEYJ5X4) from Best Buy in Daphne, Alabama for $359.00 plus tax and gifted it to her son,
`
`Chris Smith, on December 25, 2017.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Karen Smithson is a California citizen domiciled in California. On or about
`
`December 18, 2016, she purchased a new Series 2 Stainless Steel 38mm Apple Watch (Serial No.
`
`FHLTP06ZHDXL) from the Apple Store in San Francisco, California for $1,049.00 plus tax.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Jason Roush is an Ohio citizen and domiciled in Ohio. In November 2017, he
`
`purchased a new Series 2 Nike Edition Aluminum 42mm Apple Watch (Serial No. FHLTK0HRHF1N)
`
`from Best Buy in Akron, Ohio for approximately $350.00 plus tax.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Corey Pomroy is a Maryland citizen domiciled in Maryland. In December 2018,
`
`he purchased a new Series 3 Cellular Nike + 42mm Apple Watch (Serial No. G99XF4VHJ6GP) online
`
`from AT&T and had it shipped to Maryland for approximately $300.00 plus tax.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Frank Ortega is a California citizen domiciled in California. After February
`
`2021, he purchased a new Series SE Aluminum 44mm (GPS) Apple Watch (Serial No.
`
`H4HF7AE0Q07Y) from an Apple Store in Northridge, California for approximately $309.00 plus tax.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Leslie White is a New York citizen domiciled in New York. In September 2021,
`
`she purchased a new Series 6 Aluminum 44mm (GPS) Apple Watch (Serial No. H8XF9013Q1RN)
`
`online from Best Buy in Amherst, New York for approximately $249.00 plus tax.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Alberto Cornea is a New York citizen domiciled in New York. In 2019, he
`
`purchased a new Series 3 Stainless Steel 42mm (GPS + Cellular) Apple Watch (Serial No.
`
`GQ2ZV06MJ6GH) from the Apple Store in New York for approximately $249.00 plus tax.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 6 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 8 of 73
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff Michelle Rogers is a Florida citizen domiciled in Florida. In May or June 2015,
`
`she purchased a First Generation Sport Aluminum 38mm Apple Watch (Serial No. FH72LZ5AGR79)
`
`online from Apple’s website for approximately $349.00 plus tax.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Joshua Bays is a Michigan citizen domiciled in Michigan. In September 2016,
`
`he purchased a new First Generation Sport Aluminum 42mm Apple Watch (Serial No.
`
`FHNPXXWEG9J6) from an Apple Store in Troy, Michigan for approximately $349.00 plus tax.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Deborah Class is a Georgia citizen domiciled in Georgia. In 2016, she
`
`purchased a new First Generation Sport Aluminum 38mm Apple Watch (Serial No. FHLR11R4GR79)
`
`from Apple’s website for approximately $349.00 plus tax.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Amber Jones is a Texas citizen domiciled in Texas. In December 2016, she
`
`purchased a new First Generation Aluminum Apple Watch (Serial No. unknown) from Best Buy in Fort
`
`Worth, Texas for approximately $349.00 plus tax.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant Apple is a California corporation with a principal place of business at One
`
`Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple regularly conducts business throughout California
`
`and in this judicial district. Apple started selling Apple Watches in April 2015 when it introduced its
`
`“First Generation” Apple Watch (“Series 0”). Since September 2016, Defendant has released additional
`
`“Generations” of the Apple Watch: the Second Generation Watches (Series 1 and Series 2)2; the Third
`
`Generation Watch (Series 3); the Fourth Generation Watch (Series 4); the Fifth Generation Watch
`
`(Series 5); and the Sixth Generation Watch (Series 6 and SE). The different series of Watches come in
`
`various models, including in many instances Aluminum, Stainless, Nike, Hermes, and Edition.
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, Apple makes all its decisions about advertising,
`
`promotional literature, product packaging, its online purchase portal, User Guides, and on-screen device
`
`instructions in California and prepares and disseminates all these materials from California. Apple
`
`designed the Watches in California. Apple’s pre-release testing of the Watches, described in more detail
`
`below, occurs in California. Apple’s engineering, product development, website, marketing, and sales
`
`departments are all based in California and all relevant decisions associated with the Watch made by
`
`
`2 The Series 1 and 2 were both in the same Generation.
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 7 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 9 of 73
`
`
`
`these departments are made in California. Apple’s partial representations about the health and safety
`
`features of the Watch (which failed to disclose the Defect and resulting unreasonable safety hazard)
`
`were disseminated from California. Apple made the decision not to disclose the Defect in California. In
`
`addition, a substantial number of Class members are located in California.
`
`COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Watches Manufactured, Advertised, and Sold by Apple
`
`38.
`
`Since as early as 2015, Apple has designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed,
`
`warranted, and sold—directly via the internet, its App store, or physical Apple Store locations – or
`
`indirectly through authorized stores and other retail outlets—millions of defective Watches in California
`
`and nationwide.
`
`39.
`
`Apple contracted with retailers so that the retailers could sell Watches to consumers.
`
`Apple intended that consumers would be the end users of Watches and that consumers would be the
`
`beneficiaries of its contracts with retailers to sell Watches to consumers.
`
`40.
`
`Apple first began selling its Watches in April 2015 when it introduced the First
`
`Generation Apple Watch. The First Generation Apple Watch used aluminum or stainless steel cases
`
`with sapphire crystal screens, but consumers were able to choose between a 38mm case and a 42mm
`
`case. Initially, prices for the First Generation varied between $349 and $549 – depending on the size
`
`chosen – but dropped following the release of new versions of the Watch.
`
`41.
`
`Starting in September 2016, Apple discontinued the manufacture of the First Generation
`
`Apple Watch and began to produce and sell both Second Generation (Series 1 and Series 2) Watches.
`
`42.
`
`The Series 1 Watches only used aluminum cases with “Ion-X glass” screens, but
`
`consumers were able to choose between a 38mm case and a 42mm case. Initially, prices for Series 1
`
`watches varied between $269 and $299—depending on the size chosen—but dropped following the
`
`release of new versions of the Watch.
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, purchasers of the Series 2 Watch could choose various
`
`models, with either a 38mm or 42mm case. Depending on the model, Series 2 Watches had aluminum,
`
`ceramic, or stainless-steel cases, and either Ion-X glass or sapphire crystal screens. Again, depending on
`
`the model selected, prices for the Series 2 watches ranged from $269 to $1,249.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 8 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 10 of 73
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`44.
`
`In September 2017, Apple discontinued the manufacture of the Series 2 Watch, and in
`
`September 2018, Apple announced that it would no longer sell the Series 1 Watch.
`
`45.
`
`In September 2017, Apple released the Third Generation (Series 3) Watch. Initially, there
`
`were several models of the Series 3. Depending on the model, Series 3 Watches would have aluminum,
`
`ceramic, or stainless-steel cases, and either Ion-X glass or sapphire crystal screens. Consumers can
`
`select between a 38mm or 42mm case. Depending on the model, prices for the Series 3 varied between
`
`$329 and $1,399. As of the filing of this Complaint, Apple has not discontinued the manufacture or sale
`
`of the Series 3 Watch.
`
`46.
`
`In September 2018, Apple released the Series 4 Watch. Initially, there were several
`
`models of the Series 4. Depending on the model, Series 4 Watches would have aluminum, ceramic, or
`
`stainless-steel cases, and either Ion-X glass or sapphire crystal screens. Consumers can select between a
`
`40mm or 44mm case. There are several models of the Series 4 Watch, and, depending on the model, its
`
`price varies from $399 to $1,499.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`In September 2019, Apple discontinued the manufacture of the Series 4 Watch.
`
`In September 2019, Apple released the Series 5 Watch. Initially, there were several
`
`models of the Series 5. Depending on the model, Series 5 Watches would have aluminum, ceramic, or
`
`stainless-steel cases, and either Ion-X glass or sapphire crystal screens. Consumers can select between a
`
`40mm or 44mm case. There are several models of the Series 5 Watch, and, depending on the model, its
`
`price varies from $399 to $1,499.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`In September 2020, Apple discontinued the manufacture of the Series 5 Watch.
`
`In September 2020, Apple released the Series 6 Watch. Initially, there were several
`
`models of the Series 6. Depending on the model, Series 6 Watches would have aluminum, ceramic, or
`
`silver stainless-steel cases, and either Ion-X glass or sapphire crystal screens. Consumers can select
`
`between a 40mm or 44mm case. There are several models of the Series 6 Watch, and, depending on the
`
`model, its price varies from $399 to $1,499.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`In October 2021, Apple discontinued the manufacture of the Series 6 Watch.
`
`Also in September 2020, Apple released the Series SE Watch, a lower cost version of its
`
`Series 6 Watch. Depending on the model, Series SE Watches would have aluminum cases with Ion-X
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 9 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 11 of 73
`
`
`
`screens. Consumers can select between a 40mm or 44mm case. There are also several models of the
`
`Series SE Watch, and, depending on the model, its price varies from $279 to $309. As of the filing of
`
`this Complaint, Apple has not discontinued the manufacture or sale of the Series SE Watch.
`
`Apple’s Omissions About the Watches
`
`53.
`
`From their inception, the Watches have been advertised as “smart watches,” with
`
`functions well beyond simply telling the time. Consumers can, among other things, download files,
`
`receive and send text messages, track their location, and receive phone calls.3
`
`54. More importantly, Apple has consistently marketed the Watches as activity-oriented
`
`devices that consumers can take anywhere and safely use for any practical purpose. Advertisements for
`
`the Series 1 Watch that appeared on Apple’s website invited consumers to: “Track your activity.
`
`Measure your workouts. Monitor your health.”4 Consumers were encouraged to pick from a variety of
`
`workouts and Apple promised that the Watch would accurately measure movement. Apple advertises
`
`that Apple Watch Series 6, Apple Watch SE, and Apple Watch Series 3 have a water resistance rating of
`
`50 meters under ISO standard 22810:2010.5 The Watches also included fitness and health capabilities.
`
`Likewise, the Series 3 is advertised as the “Ultimate Sports Watch” that can track indoor and outdoor
`
`activities.6
`
`55.
`
`Advertising campaigns for the Watches have shown, and continue to show, Apple Watch
`
`wearers participating in a variety of athletic activities from running, hiking, and climbing, to dancing,
`
`swimming, and surfing.7
`
`56.
`
`Apple has also consistently marketed the Watch as “healthy” and “safe.”
`
`
`3 https://www.apple.com/watch/
`4 As the Series 1 and Series 2 watches are no longer sold by Apple, the advertisements have been
`removed from Apple’s website.
`5 https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-se/?afid=p238%7Cs1Phk1EPY-
`dc_mtid_20925qtb42335_pcrid_534965872726_pgrid_114810878159_&cid=wwa-us-kwgo-watch-slid-
`--Brand-AppleWatchSE-Evergreen-
`6 https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-3/
`7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b6W3ltMRN0;
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXySS9j4Rxg; https://www.apple.com/watch/films/;
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cBJBj_tbHM; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AELaas6CV8I;
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCMnrssX1NE.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 12 of 73
`
`
`
`a) First Generation
`
`“Apple Watch is . . . a groundbreaking health and fitness companion.”8
`
`b) Series 1
`
`“Apple Watch is the ultimate companion for a healthy life” with “breakthrough new
`
`fitness and health features . . . .”9
`
`c) Series 2
`
`Apple Watch has “changed people’s lives” and is “packed with features to help . . .
`
`customers live a healthy life.”10 It is the “perfect running partner on your wrist.”11
`
`d) Series 3
`
`Apple Watch is “an amazing health and fitness companion” and is the “ultimate device
`
`for a healthy life.”12
`
`e) Series 4
`
`Apple Watch “becomes an intelligent guardian for your health.”13 Apple promotes the
`
`Watch as a “fitness and workout companion.” Id.
`
`f) Series 5
`
`Apple Watch makes users “empowered to take charge of their health and fitness . . . .”14
`
`g) Series 6
`
`“On your wrist. Anytime. Anywhere.”15 Apple markets the Watch to be worn while
`
`customers sleep.16 “Apple Watch offers a remarkable set of features that can help them
`
`keep in touch with loved ones, be more active and stay safe.”17 “[W]atchOS 7 also offers
`
`
`8 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2015/03/09Apple-Watch-Available-in-Nine-Countries-on-April-24/
`9 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/06/apple-previews-watchos-3/
`10 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/09/apple-introduces-apple-watch-series-2/
`11 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/09/apple-nike-launch-apple-watch-nike/
`12 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-watch-series-3-features-built-in-cellular-and-more/
`13 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/09/redesigned-apple-watch-series-4-revolutionizes-
`communication-fitness-and-health/
`14 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-unveils-apple-watch-series-5/
`15 https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-6/
`16 https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-6/
`17 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/09/apple-extends-the-apple-watch-experience-to-the-entire-
`family/
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 11 Case No.: 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-09527-HSG Document 31 Filed 03/28/22 Page 13 of 73
`
`
`
`optimized features for older adults, adding to the powerful set of health and safety tools
`
`currently available . . . .” Id. Apple encourages customers to buy Watches for their
`
`children18 and encourages healthcare providers to promote use of Watches by their
`
`patients.19
`
`h) Series SE
`
`“Powerful features to keep you healthy and safe.”20
`
`57.
`
`The overriding theme of Apple’s long-term advertising campaign of the Apple Watch has
`
`been its indispensability to the consumer’s health. Based on these and other advertisements and the high
`
`purchase price for Apple Watches, consumers expect that they will be able to use the Watches without
`
`experiencing an unreasonable safety hazard. Consumers who purchase Apple Watches also reasonably
`
`expect well-made, durable devices that can consistently perform multiple functions and withstand a
`
`variety of conditions without issue.
`
`58.
`
`Apple places information about the Watch on, among other things: (1) its website; (2) in
`
`its advertisements and promotional materials; (3) on its packaging; (4) in its online purchase portal; (5)
`
`in the User Guide; and (6) and on a user’s device when pairing the Watch with an iPhone. Each Plaintiff
`
`reviewed materials where the Defect should have been disclosed, as described in more detail below. In
`
`all these places, Apple uniformly failed to disclose that the Watches contained the Defect that would
`
`cause them to fail and render them an unreasonable safety hazard resulting in injury to the wearer. This
`
`makes the Watches unmerchantable and unfit for the uses Apple advertised, e.g., activity oriented,
`
`fitness, athletic use, health, and safety.
`
`59.
`
`Apple markets the Apple Watch worldwide. In the United States, Apple Watch product
`
`promotion and distribution occurs nationwide through Apple Stores, the Online App store, Apple’s
`
`website, and authorized retailers. Apple also markets the Apple Watch nationwide through television
`
`commercials, promotional videos, print advertisements, and digital advertisements. Apple also markets