Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`Kate T. Spelman (Cal. Bar No. 269109)
`kspelman@jenner.com
`Alexander M. Smith (Cal. Bar No. 295187)
`asmith@jenner.com
`Madeline P. Skitzki (Cal. Bar No. 318233)
`mskitzki@jenner.com
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
`Telephone:
`(213) 239-5100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 239-5199
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Apple Inc. and Apple Value Services, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CARL BARRETT, et al.,
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-4812-EJD
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`The Honorable Edward J. Davila
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC. and APPLE VALUE SERVICES,
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS APPLE INC. AND APPLE
`VALUE SERVICES, LLC’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`
`Hearing Date: January 14, 2021
`
`Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
`
`Courtroom: 4 (San Jose)
`
`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
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 2 of 32
`
`TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on January 14, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the Court
`is available, in Courtroom 4 of the federal courthouse located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113,
`Defendants Apple Inc. and Apple Value Services, LLC (collectively “Apple”) will, and hereby do, move
`to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the
`grounds that it fails to state a plausible claim on which relief can be granted.
`Apple’s Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, Apple’s concurrently-filed Request for Judicial Notice and exhibits thereto, any
`additional briefing on this subject, and the evidence and arguments that will be presented to the Court at
`the hearing on this matter.
`
`DATED: October 8, 2020
`
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`
`By: s/ Kate T. Spelman
`Attorney for Defendants
`Apple Inc. and Apple Value Services, LLC
`
`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
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 3 of 32
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Apple’s Sale of Gift Cards ...................................................................................................3
`
`Allegations of the Complaint ...............................................................................................6
`
`ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................................................7
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot State a Plausible Claim Against Apple, as Their Alleged Injuries
`Resulted from Third-Party Conduct for Which Apple Is Not Responsible .........................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Do Not Plausibly Allege That Apple Aided and Abetted Third-
`Party Fraud ...............................................................................................................9
`
`Plaintiffs’ Failure-to-Warn Theory Is Fatally Defective, As Apple Provides
`Adequate Warnings and Owes No Such Duty to Consumers in Any Event .........12
`
`Plaintiffs’ Fraud-by-Omission Theory — Which Is Premised on Plaintiffs’
`Misinterpretation of Apple’s Website — Is Also Implausible ..............................14
`
`The Disclaimer on the Apple Gift Card Packaging Defeats Plaintiffs’ Claims .................16
`
`Plaintiffs’ Contract-Based Claims Are Implausible and Must Be Dismissed ...................19
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated a Plausible Elder Abuse Claim ...............................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated a Plausible Elder Abuse Claim Under California
`Law ........................................................................................................................20
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot State an Elder Abuse Claim Under Any Other States’
`Laws .......................................................................................................................22
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Stated a Plausible Quasi-Contract Claim and Cannot Seek
`Restitution ..........................................................................................................................22
`
`Plaintiffs’ Declaratory Relief Claim Fails Because Their Substantive Claims Also
`Fail .....................................................................................................................................23
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Seek Restitution Because They Have an Adequate Legal Remedy ......24
`
`VIII. This Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Without Leave to Amend ...................25
`
`CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................25
`
`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
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 4 of 32
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alamilla v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`30 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................................... 12
`
`Anthony v. Yahoo Inc.,
`421 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`In re Apple & AT&TM Antitrust Litig.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................... 16, 20, 21
`
`Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychare Servs., Inc.,
`24 Cal. 4th 83 (2000) ............................................................................................................................ 17
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................................ 22
`
`Avidity Partners, LLC v. State of California,
`221 Cal. App. 4th 1180 (2013) ............................................................................................................. 20
`
`Bates v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.,
`362 Or. 337 (2018) ................................................................................................................................ 22
`
`Baxter v. Intelius, Inc.,
`No. 09-1031, 2010 WL 3791487 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2010) ............................................................... 18
`
`Bayer v. Rockwell,
`No. 10-1613, 2010 WL 11684813 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) ............................................................... 21
`
`Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`127 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2005) ............................................................................................................. 11
`
`Celebrity Chefs Tour, LLC v. Macy’s, Inc.,
`No. 13-2714, 2014 WL 121607845 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014) .............................................................. 8
`
`Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC v. New Alliance Props., Inc.,
`No. 17-1505, 2017 WL 5635023 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2017) ................................................................ 23
`
`Das v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`186 Cal. App. 4th 727 (2010) ............................................................................................................... 21
`
`Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) ............................................................................................................... 13
`
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................ 17, 18
`
`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
`
`ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 5 of 32
`
`Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill,
`36 Cal. 4th 224 (2005) ............................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Diaz v. Intuit, Inc.,
`No. 15-1778, 2018 WL 2215790 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2018) ................................................................ 10
`
`Emery v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n,
`95 Cal. App. 4th 952 (2002) ..................................................................................................... 1, 8, 9, 12
`
`In re Ferrero Litig.,
`794 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Fimby-Christensen v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.,
`No. 13-1007, 2013 WL 6158040 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013) .............................................................. 17
`
`Fiol v. Doellstedt,
`50 Cal. App. 4th 1318 (1996) ..................................................................................................... 9, 10, 11
`
`In re Firearm Cases,
`126 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2005) ................................................................................................................. 8
`
`Freeman v. Time, Inc.,
`68 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................................. 17
`
`Friedman v. U.S. Bank N.A.,
`16-2265, 2016 WL 3226005 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016) ......................................................................... 22
`
`Gerard v. Ross,
`204 Cal. App. 3d 968 (1988) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`In re Google Phone Litigation,
`No. 10-1177, 2012 WL 3155571 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012) ................................................................. 18
`
`Gray v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
`No. 08-1690, 2012 WL 313703 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012) ............................................................. 14, 15
`
`Hamm v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`No. 16-3370, 2019 WL 4751911 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019) ............................................................... 15
`
`Hammond Enterprises Inc. v. ZPS America LLC,
`No. 12-3600, 2013 WL 5814505 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2013) ................................................................ 18
`
`Herron v. Best Buy Co.,
`924 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2013)............................................................................................. 9, 14
`
`Hosp. Mktg. Concepts, LLC v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc.,
`No. 15-1791, 2016 WL 9045621 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) ................................................................. 23
`
`Howard v. Superior Court,
`2 Cal. App. 4th 745 (1992) ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`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
`
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 6 of 32
`
`Hsieh v. FCA US LLC,
`440 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2020) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`785 F. Supp. 2d 883 (C.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................................. 15
`
`J.L. v. Children’s Inst., Inc.,
`177 Cal. App. 4th 388 (2009) ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Jamster Mktg. Litig.,
`No. 05-819, 2009 WL 1456632 (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2009) ................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Joude v. WordPress Found.,
`No. 14-1656, 2014 WL 3107441 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2014) .................................................................. 19
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indem. Co.,
`44 Cal. App. 4th 194 (1996) ................................................................................................................. 23
`
`Lusson v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 16-705, 2016 WL 10932723 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) ................................................................ 23
`
`McCrary v. Elations Co.,
`No. 13-242, 2013 WL 6403073 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2013) ................................................................... 15
`
`McKean v. ABC Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`No. 18-923, 2018 WL 5295020 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018) ................................................................... 11
`
`Mirkin v. Wasserman,
`5 Cal. 4th 1082 (1993) .......................................................................................................................... 16
`
`Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman,
`51 Cal. 4th 811 (2011) .......................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp.,
`322 F. App’x 489 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`84 F. Supp. 3d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................................... 15
`
`Paracor Fin., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp.,
`96 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................................ 23
`
`Paslay v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.,
`248 Cal. App. 4th 639 (2016) ............................................................................................................... 21
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n,
`494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................................ 8, 11
`
`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
`
`iv
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 7 of 32
`
`Richards v. Stanley,
`43 Cal. 2d 60 (1954) ............................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Smith v. Ford Motor Co.,
`749 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................................. 13
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................................ 3, 24
`
`Souza v. Westlands Water Dist.,
`135 Cal. App. 4th 879 (2006) ............................................................................................................... 20
`
`Stavrinides v. Vin Di Bona,
`No. 18-314, 2018 WL 1311440 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) .................................................................. 23
`
`Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP,
`202 Cal. App. 4th 522 (2011) ............................................................................................................... 21
`
`Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,
`143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................................. 24
`
`United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`Worldwide Media, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.,
`No. 17-7335, 2018 WL 5099271 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2018) ................................................................. 17
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 .................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30(a) ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`O.R.S. § 124.110 ......................................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ....................................................................................................................... 7, 8, 10, 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`CACI No. 3610 ........................................................................................................................................... 10
`
`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
`
`v
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 8 of 32
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs’ effort to hold Apple liable for the conduct of third-party scammers is meritless. Nowhere
`in their complaint do Plaintiffs allege that Apple misled any consumers into transferring their Apple gift
`card funds to third-party fraudsters. Nor do Plaintiffs allege that Apple concealed this fraud from
`consumers; indeed, they expressly acknowledge that Apple created a web page to warn consumers of this
`scam, that it advised consumers not to give their gift card information to strangers and that, if they did so,
`the funds on their gift cards would likely be spent before Apple could intervene. But while Apple bears
`no fault for this scam — and has affirmatively warned consumers of this scam so they do not fall prey to
`it — Plaintiffs have nonetheless filed this lawsuit in a misguided effort to shift the blame to Apple.
`Under California law, however, Plaintiffs cannot hold Apple liable for the third-party misconduct
`at issue here. A defendant is generally liable only for its “personal participation” in the challenged conduct
`at issue, and it has no duty to act as a “global policeman” against the misconduct of third parties. Emery
`v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 95 Cal. App. 4th 952, 966 (2002). This is particularly true when a plaintiff seeks
`to hold the defendant liable for third-party criminal conduct — which, by its nature, can only be blamed
`on the criminals who perpetrated it. To circumvent that principle, Plaintiffs accuse Apple of aiding and
`abetting the scam — allegedly so it can keep its share of the money spent by the scammers on the apps and
`other content Apple sells. But Plaintiffs have not come close to alleging that Apple intentionally facilitated
`the scam or that it provided “substantial assistance” to the scammers. And even if Plaintiffs had plausibly
`alleged that Apple did not do enough to prevent this scam (which they have not), that is woefully
`insufficient to hold Apple liable under an aiding-and-abetting theory.
`Plaintiffs’ fraud-by-omission theories fare no better. For example, while Plaintiffs accuse Apple
`of failing to warn consumers of the scam at the point of purchase, that theory fails. Leaving aside the fact
`that this is demonstrably false (as evidenced by multiple documents that are subject to judicial notice at the
`pleading stage), California law does not impose on Apple any purported duty to warn consumers about the
`risk of gift card theft. Similarly, while Plaintiffs claim that Apple falsely represented that there is “nothing
`Apple can do” about gift card theft, and concealed the extent of its ability to unwind fraudulent transactions,
`that theory is similarly unavailing: Plaintiffs mischaracterize Apple’s “About Gift Card Scams” web page;
`they erroneously assume that Apple’s supposed failure to disclose information about the scam constitutes
`
`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
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 9 of 32
`
`“active concealment”; and they do not allege actual reliance on these representations or articulate any
`intelligible reason why the disclosure of this information would have made them less likely to purchase
`Apple gift cards.
`Moreover, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs could hold Apple liable for the third-party theft
`of their gift cards, Apple has disclaimed any such liability by stating on the packaging of each gift card —
`as well as in its Terms & Conditions — that “[n]either the issuer nor Apple is responsible for any loss or
`damage resulting from lost or stolen gift cards or for use without permission.” Req. for Judicial Notice
`(“RJN”) Ex. 1; see also id. Ex. 2, at 17 (“Neither Issuer nor Apple is responsible for lost or stolen Store
`Credit or Content Codes . . . .”). Although Plaintiffs claim that “Apple cannot disclaim liability for loss or
`damage resulting from scams which it intentionally aids, abets, and perpetuates” (Compl. ¶ 168), that is
`irrelevant: Apple has not intentionally aided and abetted any misconduct, and Plaintiffs do not — and
`cannot — dispute that Apple can disclaim liability for third-party conduct. Courts routinely apply similar
`disclaimers to bar claims against manufacturers (and other defendants), and this Court should follow suit.
`Leaving aside these fundamental defects in their complaint, Plaintiffs’ tag-along claims for breach
`of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, elder abuse, restitution, and
`declaratory relief fail as well. Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
`faith and fair dealing fail because they have not alleged that Apple breached any particular contractual
`provision and because the Terms & Conditions expressly permit the conduct Plaintiffs challenge.
`Likewise, Plaintiffs’ restitution claim — which seeks to recoup the money they spent on the Apple gift
`cards they allegedly transferred to third-party scammers — fails because Apple’s obligation to refund the
`value of lost or stolen gift cards is circumscribed by the Terms & Conditions to which Plaintiffs agreed.
`Plaintiffs’ elder abuse claim also fails: the complaint does not plausibly allege that Apple “assisted” third-
`party scammers in committing financial elder abuse, and California law makes clear that a defendant is not
`liable for elder abuse simply because its lawful, age-neutral policies also apply to elderly consumers. And
`because Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief claim is duplicative of their substantive claims, it fails as well.
`Finally, even if this Court declines to grant Apple’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, it should
`narrow the scope of the remedies at issue. As the Ninth Circuit has recently made clear, a plaintiff cannot
`seek restitution — or any equitable remedy — under California’s consumer protection statutes absent 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
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 10 of 32
`
`showing that she lacks an adequate legal remedy. See generally Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971
`F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). Because Plaintiffs have an adequate damages remedy under the CLRA,
`California’s elder abuse statute, and California common law, this Court should dismiss their claims for
`restitution and equitable relief.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`Apple’s Sale of Gift Cards.
`Apple sells a wide variety of hardware (such as laptops, iPad tablets, and iPhones), software (such
`as apps available through the App Store), and data (such as music available through iTunes) to consumers.
`Like many manufacturers, Apple also sells gift cards that consumers can use to purchase its products and
`services. Those gift cards — which are available from a wide variety of retailers throughout the United
`States — are enclosed in packaging substantially similar to the packaging featured below:
`
`RJN Ex. 1. The back of the packaging includes a section titled “Terms and Conditions,” which states —
`among other things — that “[n]either Apple nor Issuer [i.e., Apple Value Services, LLC] is responsible for
`loss or damage resulting from lost or stolen gift cards or for use without permission”:
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`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 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 11 of 32
`
`Id. The packaging also conceals a strip of foil on the back of the gift card, which hides a randomized and
`unique code (“redemption code”) used to activate and redeem the funds on the card after purchase:
`
`Id. The back of the card also states, in bold red font: “Do not share your code with anyone you do not
`know.” Id.
`If a consumer were to purchase a gift card through Apple’s website (as opposed to a retail
`establishment), he or she would begin on the Apple Gift Card web page. The bottom of the web page
`states, in bold font: “Beware of gift card scams. Do not share your code.” RJN Ex. 2, at 4. If a
`consumer clicks the link to purchase the card, he or she arrives at another web page that allows the
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`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 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 12 of 32
`
`consumer to specify the amount of the gift card and the method of delivery (i.e., email or mail). Id. This
`web page also includes the same bold-font warning: “Beware of gift card scams. Do not share your
`code.” Id. at 5. And when a consumer reaches the checkout web page, Apple requires him or her to
`affirmatively assent to the Terms & Conditions by clicking a box:
`
`Id. at 13. Like the Terms & Conditions on the back of the physical packaging, the Terms & Conditions
`on the website state: “Neither Issuer nor Apple is responsible for any loss or damage resulting from any
`lost or stolen Gift Cards or content codes, or use without permission.” Id. at 17.
`The Apple Gift Card web page also includes a hyperlink with the words “Learn more about Apple
`gift card scams.” See id. at 2. If a consumer were to click this link, he or she would arrive at a website
`titled “About Gift Card Scams.” See RJN Ex. 3. This web page warns consumers of scams involving
`Apple gift cards and warns them not to disclose the numbers on the back of the Apple gift cards to strangers:
`A string of scams are taking place asking people to make payments over the phone for things
`such as taxes, hospital bills, bail money, debt collection, and utility bills. The scams are
`committed using many methods, including gift cards. As the fraudsters are sometimes
`requesting codes from App Store & iTunes Gift Cards or Apple Store Gift Cards, we want to
`make sure our customers are aware of these scams.
`
`Regardless of the reason for payment, the scam follows a certain formula: The victim receives
`a call instilling panic and urgency to make a payment by purchasing App Store & iTunes Gift
`Cards or Apple Store Gift Cards from the nearest retailer (convenience store, electronics retailer,
`etc.). After the cards have been purchased, the victim is asked to pay by sharing the code(s) on
`the back of the card with the caller over the phone.
`
`It's important to know that App Store & iTunes Gift Cards can be used ONLY to purchase goods
`and services from the iTunes Store, App Store, Apple Books, for an Apple Music subscription,
`or for iCloud storage. Apple Store Gift Cards can be redeemed ONLY on the Apple Online
`Store and at Apple Retail Stores. If you're approached to use the cards for any other payment,
`you could very likely be the target of a scam and should immediately report it to your local
`police department as well as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at ftccomplaintassistant.gov.
`
`Never provide the numbers on the back of a Gift Card to someone you do not know. Once
`those numbers are provided to the scammers, the funds on the card will likely be spent
`before you are able to contact Apple or law enforcement.
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`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 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 13 of 32
`
`Id. (emphasis added).
`II.
`Allegations of the Complaint.
`Plaintiffs — seven individuals between the ages of 50 and 71 — allege that they were the victims
`of a scam involving Apple gift cards. According to Plaintiffs, the scam involves the following steps:
`
` First, the scammer obtains a gift card number and redemption code from the victim by contacting
`the victim over the phone, stating that the victim needs to make a payment for some purpose, and
`asking the victim to make that payment by sharing the codes on his or her gift card.
`
` Second, the scammer either re-sells the gift card codes or loads the value of the gift card on to an
`Apple ID that he or she controls.
`
` Third, the stored value of the gift card is spent on apps (which, in some instances, are controlled by
`the scammer), in-app purchases, or iTunes products.
`
` Fourth, approximately 45 days after the close of the fiscal month, Apple pays the app developer
`approximately 70% of the total value of any Apple gift cards spent on the developer’s apps.
`See Compl. ¶¶ 56-64.
`Because Apple allegedly keeps 30% of funds spent through the iTunes store, Plaintiffs claim that
`it has an economic incentive to perpetuate this scam and not to refund consumers who are victimized by
`third-party scammers. To that end, Plaintiffs allege that Apple misleads consumers by “suggest[ing] to
`victims that there is nothing Apple can do,” even though it allegedly has the technical capacity to determine
`which gift cards have been stolen by scammers and the apps where those funds were spent, to stop payment
`to developers’ bank accounts, and to unwind the relevant transactions. See id. ¶¶ 66-77. By “remain[ing]
`largely silent about this epidemic,” Plaintiffs claim that Apple “effectively perpetuates” this scam and is
`therefore liable for it. Id. ¶¶ 67, 70. Indeed, Plaintiffs go so far as to allege that Apple “intentionally aids
`and abets scammers, and ensures that the iTunes gift card scams will continue, to the direct benefit of
`Apple.” Id. ¶ 81.
`Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert causes of action for: (1) violation of the Consumers
`Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq. (Compl. ¶¶ 132-48); (2) violation of the Unfair
`Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (Compl. ¶¶ 149-56); (3) violation of the False
`Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq. (Compl. ¶¶ 157-63); (4) breach of contract (id.
`
`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
`
`6
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04812-EJD Document 33 Filed 10/08/20 Page 14 of 32
`
`¶¶ 164-74; (5) “Money Had and Received/Unjust Enrichment/Restitution” (id. ¶¶ 175-79); (6) breach of
`the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (id. ¶¶ 180-86); (7) aiding and abetting intentional torts
`(id. ¶¶ 187-91); (8) elder abuse (under both California and Oregon law) (id. ¶¶ 192-214); and (9)
`declaratory relief (id. ¶¶ 215-22).
`Plaintiffs assert these claims on behalf of themselves, a nationwide class of consumers who
`“provided the redemption codes to people unknown to them who sought to the