Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 81
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`Sean L. Litteral (State Bar No. 331985)
`1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
` slitteral@bursor.com
`
`
`MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
`Nicholas A. Migliaccio (pro hac vice)
`Jason S. Rathod (pro hac vice)
`412 H St., NE
`Washington. D.C. 20002
`Telephone: (202) 470-3520
`Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
`E-Mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
` jrathod@classlawdc.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-07109-VC
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`DANIEL FRIEND, DAPHNE PAREAS, SCOTT
`SEVELAND, PATRICE SHERMAN, NESTOR
`ALMEIDA, ADELINA LAVECCHIA, DAN
`HENDERSON, MARITZA ANGELES, TIM
`INSELMANN, WILLIAM WEST-DAVIS,
`PATRICIA MEDBERRY, and HANDY
`COLINDREZ, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Vince Chhabria
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`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
`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 81
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Daniel Friend, Daphne Pareas, Scott Seveland, Patrice Sherman, Nestor Almeida,
`Adelina LaVecchia, Dan Henderson, Maritza Angeles, Tim Inselmann, William West-Davis, Patricia
`Medberry, and Handy Colindrez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated against Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”) for the
`manufacture, marketing, detailing, distribution, and sale of the defective Apple M1 MacBook Air
`and M1 MacBook Pro (“M1 MacBook”). Plaintiffs make the following allegations pursuant to the
`investigation of counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to the allegations
`specifically pertaining to themselves, which are based on personal knowledge.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`1.
`This action is brought on behalf of purchasers of Apple’s M1 MacBook. Apple
`markets and sells the M1 MacBook as a top-of-the-line computer, debuting on November 10, 2020,
`with a hefty price tag of $999 for the M1 MacBook Air and $1,299 for the M1 MacBook Pro. But
`the M1 MacBook is defective, as the screens are extraordinarily fragile, cracking, blacking out, or
`showing magenta, purple and blue lines and squares, or otherwise ceasing to function altogether (the
`“Defect”). Thousands of users from across the globe have reported this issue directly to Apple and
`on Apple sponsored forums. Nonetheless, consumers who have attempted to secure replacements or
`repairs have been rebuffed by Apple, often forced to pay out of pocket upwards of between $450 and
`$650 for repairs themselves or to secure replacements without Apple’s assistance. Others who have
`secured repairs or replacements from Apple have quickly experienced the problem reappearing on
`the repaired or replaced laptop.
`2.
`Despite its knowledge of this issue from (1) its own quality control and internal
`testing, (2) repairs data, (3) complaints made directly to Apple in person, over the phone, and via
`online submissions, (4) complaints posted online and on its own forums, (5) its deletion of several
`of these comments, (6) online reputation management, and (7) articles written on the topic by
`reputable publications, Apple did not publicly recognize the issue until August 27, 2021. At that
`time, Apple informed consumers that “[t]o enable the thin design of Mac notebook computers, the
`clearance between the display (screen) and the top case is engineered to tight tolerances.”
`Inadvertently admitting the existence of the Defect, Apple proceeded to caution its users for the very
`
`CLRA DECLARATION
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 81
`
`
`
`first time, suggesting that “[i]f you use a camera cover, palm rest cover, or keyboard cover with your
`Mac notebook, remove the cover before closing your display. Leaving any materials on your display,
`keyboard, or palm rest might interfere with the display when it’s closed and cause damage to your
`display.” But as the comments reported below demonstrate, the Defect manifests independently of
`these considerations. In fact, many users, including several Plaintiffs, do not use any of the covers
`Apple mentions. Instead, the issues develop on their own without user interference.
`3.
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring their claims against Apple individually and on behalf of
`a class of all others similarly situated for (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
`Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
`Code § 1750, et seq.; (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code §
`1792, et seq.; (4) violation of California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200,
`et seq.; (5) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201.,
`et seq.; (6) violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 1 et seq.; (7) violation of the New Jersey
`Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1, et seq.; (8) violation of the New York General
`Business Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349, et seq.; (9) violation of the New York General Business
`Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 350, et seq.; (10) violation of the North Carolina Consumer Protection
`Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et. seq.; (11) violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices
`Act, R.I. Gen. Law §§ 6-13.1, et seq.; (12) violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Va.
`Code Ann. § 59.1-196, et seq.; (13) Fraud; (14) Constructive Fraud; (15) Fraudulent Inducement;
`(16) Money Had and Received; (17) Fraudulent Omission or Concealment; (18) Fraudulent
`Misrepresentation; (19) Negligent Misrepresentation; (20) Quasi-Contract / Unjust Enrichment; (21)
`Breach of Express Warranty; (22) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (23) Breach of
`Contract / Common Law Warranty; and (24) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
`U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`4.
`Plaintiff Daniel Friend is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen of
`Fullerton, California. In or around May 2021, Plaintiff Friend purchased his M1 MacBook Pro
`directly from Apple at its Apple Brea Mall store location. Prior to his purchase of the M1 MacBook,
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 4 of 81
`
`
`
`he did not know, nor could he have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in his laptop.
`Due to the Defect, Plaintiff Friend’s laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted and promised in
`its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly available in the
`marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff Friend relied upon when deciding to purchase
`his laptop. Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff’s Friend’s purchase and during the normal course of
`use of his M1 MacBook, his screen displayed horizontal lines followed shortly after by cracks on the
`right side of the screen, rendering the display inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plaintiff
`Friend’s M1 MacBook defective at the point of sale due to the Defect, but Apple has exacerbated the
`problems via its misrepresentations and omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s screen. As a result
`of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff Friend did not receive the benefit of his bargain and was injured as a
`result. To remedy this Defect, Plaintiff Friend visited Apple’s Genius Bar to have his M1 MacBook
`repaired under Apple’s one-year limited warranty. However, Apple informed Plaintiff Friend that it
`would not cover the cost of his screen, leaving him $615 out of pocket for the cost of the repair. If
`Plaintiff Friend had been told of this Defect and the deceptive manner in which Apple would conceal
`this Defect and thereafter refuse to cover it under its warranty, Plaintiff Friend would not have
`purchased his M1 MacBook, or would have paid substantially less. Plaintiff Friend remains very
`much interested in purchasing Apple’s laptops in the future and would consider doing so, if he felt
`confident that Apple would correct the problems discussed here and throughout this Complaint.
`5.
`Plaintiff Daphne Pareas is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Los Altos, California. In or around November 2021, Plaintiff Pareas purchased her M1 MacBook
`Air directly from Apple at its online store, www.apple.com. Prior to her purchase of the M1
`MacBook, she did not know, nor could she have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect
`in her laptop. Due to the Defect, Plaintiff Pareas’ laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted and
`promised in its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly available in
`the marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff Pareas relied on to make her purchase.
`Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff Pareas’ purchase and during the normal course of use of her M1
`MacBook, cracks began to form on the laptop’s screen and were soon accompanied by black bars
`streaking across the display, rendering the display inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plaintiff
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 5 of 81
`
`
`
`Pareas’ M1 MacBook defective at the point of sale due to the Defect, but Apple has exacerbated the
`problems via its misrepresentations and omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s screen. As a result
`of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff Pareas did not receive the benefit of her bargain and was injured as a
`result. To remedy this Defect, Plaintiff Pareas visited Mobile Kangaroo, an Authorized Service
`Provider, to have her M1 MacBook repaired under Apple’s one-year limited warranty. However,
`Apple informed Plaintiff Pareas that it would not cover the cost of her screen. Due to financial
`reasons, Plaintiff Pareas has not had her laptop repaired and instead, has only been able to use her
`laptop when plugged into an external monitor, i.e. as a desktop computer instead of as a laptop. If
`Plaintiff Pareas had been told of this Defect and the deceptive manner in which Apple would conceal
`this Defect and thereafter refuse to cover it under its warranty, Plaintiff Pareas would not have
`purchased her M1 MacBook, or would have paid substantially less. Plaintiff Pareas remains very
`much interested in purchasing Apple’s laptops in the future and would consider doing so, if she felt
`confident that Apple would correct the problems discussed here and throughout this Complaint.
`6.
`Plaintiff Scott Seveland is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Pompano Beach, Florida. In or around March 2021, Plaintiff Seveland purchased his M1
`MacBook Air directly from Apple at its online store at www.apple.com. Prior to his purchase of the
`M1 MacBook, he did not know, nor could he have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect
`in his laptop. Due to the Defect, Plaintiff Seveland’s laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted
`and promised in its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly
`available in the marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff Seveland relied on to make his
`purchase. Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff’s Seveland’s purchase and during the normal course
`of use of his M1 MacBook, his screen displayed black bars followed by cracks, rendering the display
`inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plaintiff Seveland’s M1 MacBook defective at the point of
`sale due to the Defect, but Apple has exacerbated the problems via its misrepresentations and
`omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s screen. As a result of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff Seveland
`did not receive the benefit of his bargain and was injured as a result. To remedy this Defect, Plaintiff
`Seveland visited an Apple store located in Palm Beach, Florida to have his M1 MacBook repaired
`under Apple’s one-year limited warranty. However, Apple informed Plaintiff Seveland that it would
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 6 of 81
`
`
`
`not cover the cost of his screen, leaving Plaintiff Seveland $428 out of pocket. If Plaintiff Seveland
`had been told of this Defect and the deceptive manner in which Apple would conceal this Defect and
`thereafter refuse to cover it under its warranty, Plaintiff Seveland would not have purchased his M1
`MacBook, or would have paid substantially less. Plaintiff Seveland remains very much interested in
`purchasing Apple’s laptops in the future and would consider doing so, if he felt confident that Apple
`would correct the problems discussed here and throughout this Complaint.
`7.
`Plaintiff Patrice Sherman is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Cambridge, Massachusetts. In or around May 2021, Plaintiff Sherman purchased her M1
`MacBook Air directly from Apple at its online store, www.apple.com. Prior to her purchase of the
`M1 MacBook, she did not know, nor could she have known through reasonable diligence, of the
`Defect in her laptop. Due to the Defect, Plaintiff Sherman’s laptop did not operate as Defendant
`warranted and promised in its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information
`publicly available in the marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff Sherman relied on to
`make her purchase. Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff Sherman’s purchase and during the normal
`course of use of her M1 MacBook, her screen displayed black bars followed by cracks, rendering her
`screen inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plaintiff Sherman’s M1 MacBook defective at the
`point of sale due to the Defect, but Apple has exacerbated the problems via its misrepresentations
`and omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s screen. As a result of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff
`Sherman did not receive the benefit of her bargain and was injured as a result. To remedy this Defect,
`Plaintiff Sherman visited Apple’s CambridgeSide store to have her M1 MacBook repaired under
`Apple’s one-year limited warranty. However, Apple informed Plaintiff Sherman that it would not
`cover the cost of her screen, leaving Plaintiff Sherman $428 out of pocket. If Plaintiff Sherman had
`been told of this Defect and the deceptive manner in which Apple would conceal this Defect and
`thereafter refuse to cover it under its warranty, Plaintiff Sherman would not have purchased her M1
`MacBook, or would have paid substantially less. Plaintiff Sherman remains very much interested in
`purchasing Apple’s laptops in the future and would consider doing so, if she felt confident that Apple
`would correct the problems discussed here and throughout this Complaint.
`///
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 7 of 81
`
`
`
`8.
`Plaintiff Nestor Almeida is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Belleville, New Jersey. In or around January 2021, Plaintiff Almeida purchased his M1 MacBook
`Pro directly from Apple at its online store, www.apple.com. Prior to his purchase of the M1
`MacBook, he did not know, nor could he have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in
`his laptop. Due to the Defect, Plaintiff Almeida’s laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted and
`promised in its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly available in
`the marketplace as described below and which Plaintiff Almeida relied on to make his purchase.
`Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff Almeida’s purchase and during the normal course of use of his
`M1 MacBook, his screen displays magenta squares followed by the whole screen going black,
`rendering the screen inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plaintiff Almeida’s M1 MacBook
`defective at the point of sale due to the Defect, but Apple has exacerbated the problems via its
`misrepresentations and omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s screen. As a result of Apple’s
`actions, Plaintiff Almeida did not receive the benefit of his bargain and was injured as a result. To
`remedy this Defect, Plaintiff Almeida visited an Apple store in Staten Island, New York to have his
`M1 MacBook repaired under Apple’s one-year limited warranty. However, Apple informed Plaintiff
`Almeida that it would not cover the cost of his screen, otherwise leaving him out of pocket for the
`cost of repair or replacement. If Plaintiff Almeida had been told of this Defect and the deceptive
`manner in which Apple would conceal this Defect and thereafter refuse to cover it under its warranty,
`Plaintiff Almeida would not have purchased his M1 MacBook, or would have paid substantially less.
`Plaintiff Almeida remains very much interested in purchasing Apple’s laptops in the future and
`would consider doing so, if he felt confident that Apple would correct the problems discussed here
`and throughout this Complaint.
`9.
`Plaintiff Adelina LaVecchia is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a
`citizen of Middlesex, New Jersey. In or around January 2021, Plaintiff LaVecchia purchased her
`M1 MacBook Pro from a BestBuy located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Prior to her purchase of the
`M1 MacBook, she did not know, nor could she have known through reasonable diligence, of the
`Defect in her laptop. Due to the Defect, Plaintiff LaVecchia’s laptop did not operate as Defendant
`warranted and promised in its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 8 of 81
`
`
`
`publicly available in the marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff LaVecchia relied on to
`make her purchase. Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff LaVecchia’s purchase and during the normal
`course of use of her M1 MacBook, her screen developed internal cracks accompanied by blue and
`purple discoloration spread across a black screen, rendering the screen inoperable. Accordingly, not
`only was Plaintiff LaVecchia’s M1 MacBook defective at the point of sale due to the Defect, but
`Apple has exacerbated the problems via its misrepresentations and omissions concerning the M1
`MacBook’s screen. As a result of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff LaVecchia did not receive the benefit of
`her bargain and was injured as a result. To remedy this Defect, Plaintiff LaVecchia visited an Apple
`store located in Bridgewater, New Jersey to have her M1 MacBook repaired under Apple’s one-year
`limited warranty. However, Apple informed Plaintiff LaVecchia that it would not cover the cost of
`her screen, leaving her $578 out of pocket for the cost of the repair. If Plaintiff LaVecchia had been
`told of this Defect and the deceptive manner in which Apple would conceal this Defect and thereafter
`refuse to cover it under its warranty, Plaintiff LaVecchia would not have purchased her M1
`MacBook, or would have paid substantially less. Plaintiff LaVecchia remains very much interested
`in purchasing Apple’s laptops in the future and would consider doing so, if she felt confident that
`Apple would correct the problems discussed here and throughout this Complaint.
`10.
`Plaintiff Dan Henderson is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Williamstown, New Jersey. In or around November 2020, Plaintiff Henderson purchased his M1
`MacBook Air directly from Apple at its Williamston location. Prior to his purchase of the M1
`MacBook, he did not know, nor could he have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in
`his laptop. Due to the Defect, Plaintiff Henderson’s laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted
`and promised in its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly
`available in the marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff Henderson relied on to make his
`purchase. For example, during Plaintiff Henderson’s normal course of use of his M1 MacBook, his
`screen displayed black bars followed by cracks, rendering the screen inoperable. Accordingly, not
`only was Plaintiff Henderson’s M1 MacBook defective at the point of sale due to the Defect, but
`Apple has exacerbated the problems via its misrepresentations and omissions concerning the M1
`MacBook’s screen. As a result of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff Henderson did not receive the benefit of
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 9 of 81
`
`
`
`his bargain and was injured as a result. To remedy this Defect, Plaintiff Henderson visited Apple’s
`Williamstown store to have his M1 MacBook repaired under Apple’s one-year limited warranty.
`However, Apple informed Plaintiff Henderson that it would not cover the cost of his screen, leaving
`him $428 out of pocket. If Plaintiff Henderson had been told of this Defect and the deceptive manner
`in which Apple would conceal this Defect and thereafter refuse to cover it under its warranty,
`Plaintiff Henderson would not have purchased his M1 MacBook, or would have paid substantially
`less. Plaintiff Henderson remains very much interested in purchasing Apple’s laptops in the future
`and would consider doing so, if she felt confident that Apple would correct the problems discussed
`here and throughout this Complaint.
`11.
`Plaintiff Maritza Angeles is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of New York, New York. In or around December 2020, Plaintiff Angeles purchased her M1
`MacBook Air from an Apple store located in New York, New York. Prior to her purchase of the M1
`MacBook, she did not know, nor could she have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect
`in her laptop. Due to the Defect, Plaintiff Angeles’ laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted
`and promised in its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly
`available in the marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff Angeles relied on to make her
`purchase. Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff Angeles’ purchase and during the normal course of use
`of her M1 MacBook, her screen developed internal cracks accompanied by their spreading across
`the screen, rendering the display inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plaintiff Angeles’ M1
`MacBook defective at the point of sale due to the Defect, but Apple has exacerbated the problems
`via its misrepresentations and omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s screen. As a result of
`Apple’s actions, Plaintiff Angeles did not receive the benefit of her bargain and was injured as a
`result. To remedy this Defect, Plaintiff Angeles visited the Apple store where she made her purchase
`to have her M1 MacBook repaired under Apple’s one-year limited warranty. However, Apple
`informed Plaintiff Angeles that it would not cover the cost of her screen. Due to financial reasons,
`Plaintiff Angeles has had to forego this repair. If Plaintiff Angeles had been told of this Defect and
`the deceptive manner in which Apple would conceal this Defect and thereafter refuse to cover it
`under its warranty, Plaintiff Angeles would not have purchased her M1 MacBook, or would have
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 10 of 81
`
`
`
`paid substantially less. Plaintiff Angeles remains very much interested in purchasing Apple’s laptops
`in the future and would consider doing so, if she felt confident that Apple would correct the problems
`discussed here and throughout this Complaint.
`12.
`Plaintiff Tim Inselmann is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Center Moriches, New York. In or around January 2021, Plaintiff Inselmann purchased his M1
`MacBook Pro online from Amazon. Prior to his purchase of the M1 MacBook, he did not know, nor
`could he have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in his laptop. Due to the Defect,
`Plaintiff Inselmann’s laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted and promised in its
`advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly available in the
`marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff Inselmann relied on to make his purchase.
`Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff Inselmann’s purchase and during the normal course of use of his
`M1 MacBook, his screen displayed cracks on the right-side and middle of the screen, rendering the
`display inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plaintiff Inselmann’s M1 MacBook defective at the
`point of sale due to the Defect, but Apple has exacerbated the problems via its misrepresentations
`and omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s screen. As a result of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff
`Inselmann did not receive the benefit of his bargain and was injured as a result. To remedy this
`Defect, Plaintiff Inselmann visited an Apple store located in Lake Grove, New York to have his M1
`MacBook repaired under Apple’s one-year limited warranty. However, Apple informed Plaintiff
`Inselmann that it would not cover the cost of his screen, leaving him $460 out of pocket for the cost
`of the repair. If Plaintiff Inselmann had been told of this Defect and the deceptive manner in which
`Apple would conceal this Defect and thereafter refuse to cover it under its warranty, Plaintiff
`Inselmann would not have purchased his M1 MacBook, or would have paid substantially less.
`Plaintiff Inselmann remains interested in purchasing Apple’s laptops in the future and would consider
`doing so, if he felt confident that Apple would correct the problems discussed here and throughout
`this Complaint.
`13.
`Plaintiff William West-Davis is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a
`citizen of Kings Mountain, North Carolina. In or around February 2021, Plaintiff West-Davis
`purchased his M1 MacBook Pro from Best Buy. Prior to his purchase of the M1 MacBook, he did
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`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 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 11 of 81
`
`
`
`not know, nor could he have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in his laptop. Due
`to the Defect, Plaintiff West-Davis’ laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted and promised in
`its advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly available in the
`marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff West-Davis relied on to make his purchase. For
`example, during Plaintiff West-Davis’ normal course of use of his M1 MacBook, his screen
`displayed black bars followed by cracks, rendering the screen inoperable. Accordingly, not only was
`Plaintiff West-Davis’ M1 MacBook defective at the point of sale due to the Defect, but Apple has
`exacerbated the problems via its misrepresentations and omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s
`screen. As a result of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff West-Davis did not receive the benefit of his bargain
`and was injured as a result. To remedy this Defect, Plaintiff West-Davis visited Apple’s Charlotte
`North Lake mall store to have his M1 MacBook repaired under Apple’s one-year limited warranty.
`However, Apple informed Plaintiff West-Davis that it would not cover the cost of his screen, leaving
`him more than $1000 out of pocket. If Plaintiff West-Davis had been told of this Defect and the
`deceptive manner in which Apple would conceal this Defect and thereafter refuse to cover it under
`its warranty, Plaintiff West-Davis would not have purchased his M1 MacBook, or would have paid
`substantially less. Plaintiff West-Davis remains very much interested in purchasing Apple’s laptops
`in the future and would consider doing so, if he felt confident that Apple would correct the problems
`discussed here and throughout this Complaint.
`14.
`Plaintiff Patricia Medbery is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Portsmouth, Rhode Island. In or around November 2020, Plaintiff Medbery purchased her M1
`MacBook Pro directly from Amazon. Prior to her purchase of the M1 MacBook, she did not know,
`nor could she have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in her laptop. Due to the
`Defect, Plaintiff Medbery’s laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted and promised in its
`advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly available in the
`marketplace as described below and which Plaintiff Medberry relied on to make her purchase.
`Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff Medbery’s purchase and during the normal course of use of her
`M1 MacBook, her screen displayed cracks towards the bottom of the display, rendering the display
`inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plaintiff Medbery’s M1 MacBook defective at the point of
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 17 Filed 11/05/21 Page 12 of 81
`
`
`
`sale due to the Defect, but Apple has exacerbated the problems via its misrepresentations and
`omissions concerning the M1 MacBook’s screen. As a result of Apple’s actions, Plaintiff Medbery
`did not receive the benefit of her bargain and was injured as a result. To remedy this Defect, Plaintiff
`Medbery called Apple’s customer support line to ask whether her M1 MacBook would be repaired
`under Apple’s one-year limited warranty. Apple informed Plaintiff Medbery that it would not cover
`the cost of her screen, and was not quoted a repair price. If Plaintiff Medbery had been told of this
`Defect and the deceptive manner in which Apple would conceal this Defect and thereafter refuse to
`cover it under its warranty, Plaintiff Medbery would not have purchased her M1 MacBook, or would
`have paid substantially less. Plaintiff Medbery remains very much interested in purchasing Apple’s
`laptops in the future and would consider doing so, if she felt confident that Apple would correct the
`problems discussed here and throughout this Complaint.
`15.
`Plaintiff Handy Colindrez is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Woodbridge, Virginia. In or around April 2021, Plaintiff Colindrez purchased her M1 MacBook
`Pro from a Best Buy located in Woodbridge. Prior to her purchase of the M1 MacBook, she did not
`know, nor could she have known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in her laptop. Due to
`the Defect, Plaintiff Colindrez’s laptop did not operate as Defendant warranted and promised in its
`advertisements, representations, packaging, and the information publicly available in the
`marketplace as identified below and which Plaintiff Colindrez relied on to make her purchase.
`Nonetheless, shortly after Plaintiff Colindrez’s purchase and during the normal course of use of her
`M1 MacBook, her screen displayed lines and purple squares, covering the screen and rendering the
`screen inoperable. Accordingly, not only was Plain