Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 80
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07109-VC Document 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 2 of 80
`
`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.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................................. 2
`PARTIES ................................................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Plaintiffs ..................................................................................................................... 2
`1.
`California Plaintiffs ........................................................................................ 2
`2.
`Florida Plaintiff .............................................................................................. 5
`3.
`Massachusetts Plaintiff ................................................................................... 6
`4.
`New Jersey Plaintiffs ...................................................................................... 7
`5.
`New York Plaintiffs ...................................................................................... 10
`6.
`North Carolina Plaintiff ................................................................................ 12
`7.
`Rhode Island Plaintiff ................................................................................... 13
`8.
`Virginia Plaintiff ........................................................................................... 14
`Defendant ................................................................................................................. 15
`B.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................... 16
`A.
`Apple Debuts the M1 MacBooks ............................................................................. 16
`B.
`The Clearance Defect ............................................................................................... 16
`C.
`The Clearance Defect is Material to Reasonable Consumers ................................... 20
`D.
`Apple’s Knowledge of the Clearance Defect ........................................................... 22
`E.
`Apple Omits the Clearance Defect from its Marketing and Packaging ................... 33
`1.
`Apple’s Product Pages and Disclosures Failed to Disclose the
`Clearance Defect .......................................................................................... 33
`MacBook Packaging and Accompanying Materials Failed to
`Disclose the Clearance Defect ...................................................................... 36
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................... 45
`CAUSES OF ACTION ......................................................................................................... 48
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of California’s Unfair Competition
`Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. .......................................................... 48
`
`2.
`
`FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`i
`
`

`

`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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 3 of 80
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of California’s Consumers
`Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. ............................................... 51
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of California’s False Advertising
`Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. .......................................................... 53
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of the Florida Deceptive and
`Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. (“FDUTPA”) ................... 55
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
`Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 93A, §§ 1, et seq. ................................ 57
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of the New Jersey Consumer
`Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1, et seq. (“NJFCA”) .......................................... 59
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of the New York General
`Business Law § 349, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 ..................................................... 60
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of the New York General
`Business Law § 350, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 ..................................................... 62
`NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of the North Carolina Consumer
`Protection Act,, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et. seq. .................................................... 63
`TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive
`Trade Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-13.1, et. seq. ........................................... 64
`ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Violation of the Virginia Consumer
`Protection Act, Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-196, et. seq. (“VCPA”) ............................. 66
`TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - Fraud .......................................................................... 68
`THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Constructive Fraud .............................................. 69
`FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Fraudulent Inducement ...................................... 70
`FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Fraudulent Concealment ......................................... 71
`SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Negligent Misrepresentation .................................. 73
`SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – Quasi-Contract / Unjust
`Enrichment ............................................................................................................... 74
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................... 75
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ........................................................................................................ 76
`
`FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`ii
`
`

`

`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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 4 of 80
`
`
`
`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 13.3-inch M1
`MacBook Air and 13.3-inch M1 MacBook Pro (“M1 MacBook(s)” or “MacBook(s)”). 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.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiffs bring this action, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
`owners of Apple’s 13.3-inch M1 MacBook Air and 13.3-inch M1 MacBook Pro. This action arises
`from Apple’s concealment of a material defect stemming from the thin display and the low clearance
`between the top case and thin display that is central to the operation of the MacBooks, and which
`ultimately causes the display to crack and to blotch during regular use free of user interference (the
`“Clearance Defect” or the “Defect”).
`2.
`Apple has long been aware of the defective MacBooks. Yet, notwithstanding its
`longstanding knowledge of the Clearance Defect, Apple routinely has refused to repair the
`MacBooks without charge when the Defect manifests.
`3.
`Many other MacBook owners have communicated with Apple’s employees and
`agents to request that Apple remedy and/or address the Clearance Defect and/or resultant damage at
`no expense. Apple has failed and/or refused to do so.
`4.
`As a result of Apple’s unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices, owners of
`the MacBooks, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property
`and/or value. The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by Apple were conducted in a
`manner giving rise to substantial aggravating factors.
`5.
`Had Plaintiffs and Class members known about the Clearance Defect at the time of
`purchase, they would not have bought the MacBooks, or would have paid substantially less for them.
`
`FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 3:21-CV-07109-VC
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 5 of 80
`
`
`
`6.
`As a result of the Clearance Defect and the monetary costs associated with attempting
`to repair the damage stemming from the Clearance Defect, Plaintiffs and Class members have
`suffered injury in fact, incurred damages, and otherwise have been harmed by Apple’s conduct.
`7.
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action to redress Apple’s violations of the various
`states’ consumer fraud statutes, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`8.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
`of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because the proposed classes consist of 100 of more members; the
`amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest; and at least one
`plaintiff is a citizen of a state different from the defendant, which is a California corporation.
`9.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple because its principal place of business
`in located within this District and it has sufficient minimum contacts in California to render the
`exercise of jurisdiction by this Court proper and necessary.
`10.
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial
`part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district.
`11.
`The practices described herein were conceived, reviewed, approved, and otherwise
`controlled from Apple’s nerve center, its headquarters in Cupertino, California. Employees at
`Apple’s headquarters directed the production and assembly of the MacBook’s hardware and
`software, and would have had pre-sale knowledge of the Clearance Defect. As Apple admitted in its
`Form 10-K for the fiscal period that ended on October 28, 2021, “most of the Company’s personnel”
`are in Silicon Valley. Apple’s breach of duty to Plaintiffs and the Class emanated from California.
`
`III. PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`1.
`California Plaintiffs
`12.
`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, Mr. Friend reviewed
`the M1 MacBook Pro product page directly on Apple’s website. At the point of purchase, Mr. Friend
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 6 of 80
`
`
`
`reviewed Apple’s M1 MacBook Pro external packaging. Within the period in which Plaintiff Friend
`could have returned his MacBook for a full refund, Mr. Friend opened the packaging for his M1
`MacBook Pro, reviewed the documents inside, including the Welcome Guide, the Information
`Guide, and the Plastic Protective Cover, and went through the setup process with his MacBook Pro
`(described in detail below).
`13.
`Despite his reliance on that material, at no point during his review of that material did
`Apple inform Plaintiff Friend of the Clearance Defect.
`14.
`Shortly after Plaintiff Friend’s purchase, and during the normal course of use of his
`M1 MacBook, his screen displayed horizontal lines followed shortly after by cracks, rendering the
`display inoperable. Mr. Friend visited Apple’s Genius Bar to have his MacBook repaired. 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 had been told of the Clearance Defect, Plaintiff Friend
`would not have purchased his M1 MacBook, or would have paid substantially less. Accordingly,
`Plaintiff Friend did not receive the benefit of his bargain and otherwise paid a price premium for the
`MacBook, amounting to injury.
`15.
`Despite being deceived, Plaintiff Friend wishes to and is likely to continue purchasing
`and using Defendant’s laptops, but only if Defendant accurately discloses the Clearance Defect at
`the point of sale. Although Plaintiff Friend regularly visits stores and online retailers that carry the
`MacBooks, because Plaintiff Friend was deceived in the past by Defendant, absent an injunction, he
`will be unable to rely with confidence on whether the MacBooks come substantially free of the
`Clearance Defect. Therefore, Plaintiff Friend will abstain from purchasing the MacBook even
`though he would like to do so in the future. In addition, members of the proposed classes run the
`risk of continuing to purchase the MacBooks under the faulty assumption that they will not manifest
`the Clearance Defect. Until Defendant is enjoined from its deceptive marketing practices, Plaintiff
`Friend and other consumers will continue to bear this ongoing injury.
`16.
`Plaintiff Daphne Pareas is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a citizen
`of Los Altos, California. In or around November 2020, Plaintiff Pareas purchased her M1 MacBook
`Air directly from Apple at its online store, www.apple.com. Prior to her purchase, Ms. Pareas
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 7 of 80
`
`
`
`reviewed the M1 MacBook Air product page directly on Apple’s website. Within the period in which
`Plaintiff Pareas could have returned her MacBook for a full refund, Ms. Pareas reviewed the external
`packaging, reviewed the documents inside, including the Welcome Guide, the Information Guide,
`and the Plastic Protective Cover, and went through the setup process with her MacBook Air
`(described in detail below).
`17.
`Despite her reliance on that material, at no point during her review of that material
`did Apple inform Plaintiff Pareas of the Clearance Defect.
`18.
`Shortly after Plaintiff Pareas’s purchase, and during the normal course of use of her
`M1 MacBook, her screen displayed cracks followed by black bars streaking across the display,
`rendering the display inoperable. Ms. Pareas visited Mobile Kangaroo, an Authorized Service
`Provider, to have her MacBook repaired. However, Apple informed Plaintiff Pareas that it would
`not cover the cost of her screen. Given the cost of repair, Plaintiff Pareas has not had her laptop
`repaired and instead, has only been able to use her laptop when plugged into an external monitor. If
`Plaintiff Pareas had been told of the Clearance Defect, she would not have purchased her M1
`MacBook, or would have paid substantially less. Accordingly, Plaintiff Pareas did not receive the
`benefit of her bargain and otherwise paid a price premium for the MacBook, amounting to injury.
`19.
`Despite being deceived, Plaintiff Pareas wishes to and is likely to continue purchasing
`and using Defendant’s laptops, but only if Defendant accurately discloses the Clearance Defect at
`the point of sale. Although Plaintiff Pareas regularly visits stores and online retailers that carry the
`MacBooks, because Plaintiff Pareas was deceived in the past by Defendant, absent an injunction, she
`will be unable to rely with confidence on whether the MacBooks come substantially free of the
`Clearance Defect. Therefore, Plaintiff Pareas will abstain from purchasing the MacBook even
`though she would like to do so in the future. In addition, members of the proposed classes run the
`risk of continuing to purchase the MacBooks under the faulty assumption that they will not manifest
`the Clearance Defect. Until Defendant is enjoined from its deceptive marketing practices, Plaintiff
`Pareas and other consumers will continue to bear this ongoing injury.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 8 of 80
`
`
`
`2.
`Florida Plaintiff
`20.
`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, www.apple.com. Prior to his purchase, Mr.
`Seveland reviewed the M1 MacBook Air product page directly on Apple’s website. Within the
`period in which Plaintiff Seveland could have returned his MacBook for a full refund, Mr. Seveland
`received reviewed the external packaging, reviewed the documents inside, including the Welcome
`Guide, the Information Guide, and the Plastic Protective Cover, and went through the setup process
`with his MacBook Air (described in detail below).
`21.
`Despite his reliance on that material, at no point during his review of that material did
`Apple inform Plaintiff Seveland of the Clearance Defect.
`22.
`Shortly after Plaintiff 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.
`Mr. Seveland visited an Apple store located in Palm Beach, Florida to have his MacBook repaired.
`However, Apple informed Plaintiff Seveland that it would not cover the cost of his screen, leaving
`him $428 out of pocket for the cost of the repair. If Plaintiff Seveland had been told of the Clearance
`Defect, he would not have purchased his M1 MacBook, or would have paid substantially less.
`23.
`Despite being deceived, Plaintiff Seveland wishes to and is likely to continue
`purchasing and using Defendant’s laptops, but only if Defendant accurately discloses the Clearance
`Defect at the point of sale of the laptops. Although Plaintiff Seveland regularly visits stores and
`online retailers that carry the MacBooks, because Plaintiff Seveland was deceived in the past by
`Defendant, absent an injunction, he will be unable to rely with confidence on whether the MacBooks
`come substantially free of the Clearance Defect. Therefore, Plaintiff Seveland will abstain from
`purchasing the MacBook even though he would like to do so in the future. In addition, members of
`the proposed classes run the risk of continuing to purchase the MacBooks under the faulty
`assumption that they will not manifest the Clearance Defect. Until Defendant is enjoined from its
`deceptive marketing practices, Plaintiff Seveland and other consumers will continue to bear this
`ongoing injury.
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 9 of 80
`
`
`
`3.
`Massachusetts Plaintiff
`24.
`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, Ms.
`Sherman reviewed the M1 MacBook Air product page directly on Apple’s website. Within the
`period in which Plaintiff Sherman could have returned her MacBook for a full refund, Ms. Sherman
`reviewed the external packaging, reviewed the documents inside, including the Welcome Guide, the
`Information Guide, and the Plastic Protective Cover, and went through the setup process with her
`MacBook Air (described in detail below).
`25.
`Despite her reliance on that material, at no point during her review of that material
`did Apple inform Plaintiff Sherman of the Clearance Defect.
`26.
`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 the display very
`difficult to operate. Ms. Sherman visited Apple’s CambridgeSide store to have her MacBook
`repaired. However, Apple informed Plaintiff Sherman that it would not cover the cost of her screen,
`leaving Plaintiff Sherman $428 out of pocket for the cost of the repair. If Plaintiff Sherman had been
`told of the Clearance Defect, she would not have purchased her M1 MacBook, or would have paid
`substantially less. Accordingly, Plaintiff Sherman did not receive the benefit of her bargain and
`otherwise paid a price premium for the MacBook, amounting to injury.
`27.
`Despite being deceived, Plaintiff Sherman wishes to and is likely to continue
`purchasing and using Defendant’s laptops, but only if Defendant accurately discloses the Clearance
`Defect at the point of sale of the laptops. Although Plaintiff Sherman regularly visits stores and
`online retailers that carry the MacBooks, because Plaintiff Sherman was deceived in the past by
`Defendant, absent an injunction, she will be unable to rely with confidence on whether the MacBooks
`come substantially free of the Clearance Defect. Therefore, Plaintiff Sherman will abstain from
`purchasing the MacBook Air even though she would like to do so in the future. In addition, members
`of the proposed classes run the risk of continuing to purchase the MacBooks under the faulty
`assumption that they will not manifest the Clearance Defect. Until Defendant is enjoined from its
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 10 of 80
`
`
`
`deceptive marketing practices, Plaintiff Sherman and other consumers will continue to bear this
`ongoing injury.
`
`4.
`New Jersey Plaintiffs
`28.
`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, Mr. Almeida
`reviewed the M1 MacBook Pro product page directly on Apple’s website. Within the period in
`which Plaintiff Almeida could have returned his MacBook for a full refund, Mr. Almeida reviewed
`the external packaging, reviewed the documents inside, including the Welcome Guide, the
`Information Guide, and the Plastic Protective Cover, and went through the setup process with his
`MacBook Air (described in detail below).
`29.
`Despite his reliance on that material, at no point during his review of that material did
`Apple inform Plaintiff Almeida of the Clearance Defect.
`30.
`Shortly after Plaintiff Almeida’s purchase, and during the normal course of use of his
`M1 MacBook, his screen displayed magenta squares followed by the screen going black, rendering
`the display inoperable. Mr. Almeida visited an Apple store located in State Island, New York to
`have his MacBook repaired. 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 the Clearance Defect, he would not have purchased his M1
`MacBook, or would have paid substantially less. Accordingly, Plaintiff Almeida did not receive the
`benefit of his bargain and otherwise paid a price premium for the MacBook, amounting to injury.
`31.
`Despite being deceived, Plaintiff Almeida wishes to and is likely to continue
`purchasing and using Defendant’s laptops, but only if Defendant accurately discloses the Clearance
`Defect at the point of sale of the laptops. Although Plaintiff Almeida regularly visits stores and
`online retailers that carry the MacBooks, because Plaintiff Almeida was deceived in the past by
`Defendant, absent an injunction, he will be unable to rely with confidence on whether the MacBooks
`come substantially free of the Clearance Defect. Therefore, Plaintiff Almeida will abstain from
`purchasing the MacBook even though he would like to do so in the future. In addition, members of
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 11 of 80
`
`
`
`the proposed classes run the risk of continuing to purchase the MacBooks under the faulty
`assumption that they will not manifest the Clearance Defect. Until Defendant is enjoined from its
`deceptive marketing practices, Plaintiff Almeida and other consumers will continue to bear this
`ongoing injury.
`32.
`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, Ms.
`LaVecchia reviewed the M1 MacBook Pro product page directly on Apple’s website. At the point
`of purchase, Ms. LaVecchia reviewed Apple’s M1 MacBook Pro external packaging. Within the
`period in which Plaintiff LaVecchia could have returned her MacBook for a full refund, Ms.
`LaVecchia opened the packaging for her M1 MacBook Pro, reviewed the documents inside,
`including the Welcome Guide, the Information Guide, and the Plastic Protective Cover, and went
`through the setup process with her MacBook Pro (described in detail below).
`33.
`Despite her reliance on that material, at no point during her review of that material
`did Apple inform Plaintiff LaVecchia of the Clearance Defect.
`34.
`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 the screen, rendering the display inoperable. Ms. LaVecchia visited an
`Apple store located in Bridgewater, New Jersey to have her MacBook repaired. However, Apple
`informed Plaintiff LaVecchia that it would not cover the cost of her screen, leaving Plaintiff
`LaVecchia $578 out of pocket for the cost of the repair. If Plaintiff LaVecchia had been told of the
`Clearance Defect, she would not have purchased her M1 MacBook, or would have paid substantially
`less. Accordingly, Plaintiff LaVecchia did not receive the benefit of her bargain and otherwise paid
`a price premium for the MacBook, amounting to injury.
`35.
`Despite being deceived, Plaintiff LaVecchia wishes to and is likely to continue
`purchasing and using Defendant’s laptops, but only if Defendant accurately discloses the Clearance
`Defect at the point of sale of the laptops. Although Plaintiff LaVecchia regularly visits stores and
`online retailers that carry the MacBooks, because Plaintiff LaVecchia was deceived in the past by
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 12 of 80
`
`
`
`Defendant, absent an injunction, she will be unable to rely with confidence on whether the MacBooks
`come substantially free of the Clearance Defect. Therefore, Plaintiff LaVecchia will abstain from
`purchasing the MacBook even though she would like to do so in the future. In addition, members of
`the proposed classes run the risk of continuing to purchase the MacBooks under the faulty
`assumption that they will not manifest the Clearance Defect. Until Defendant is enjoined from its
`deceptive marketing practices, Plaintiff LaVecchia and other consumers will continue to bear this
`ongoing injury.
`36.
`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 Williamstown location. Prior to his purchase, Mr. Henderson
`reviewed the M1 MacBook Air product page directly on Apple’s website. At the point of purchase,
`Mr. Friend reviewed Apple’s M1 MacBook Air external packaging. Within the period in which
`Plaintiff Henderson could have returned his MacBook for a full refund, Mr. Friend opened the
`packaging for his M1 MacBook Air, reviewed the documents inside, including the Welcome Guide,
`the Information Guide, and the Plastic Protective Cover, and went through the setup process with his
`MacBook Pro (described in detail below).
`37.
`Despite his reliance on that material, at no point during his review of that material did
`Apple inform Plaintiff Henderson of the Clearance Defect.
`38.
`Shortly after Plaintiff Henderson’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. Mr. Henderson visited Apple’s Williamstown store to have his MacBook repaired.
`However, Apple informed Plaintiff Henderson that it would not cover the cost of his screen, leaving
`him $428 out of pocket for the cost of the repair. If Plaintiff Henderson had been told of the
`Clearance Defect, Plaintiff Henderson would not have purchased his M1 MacBook, or would have
`paid substantially less. Accordingly, Plaintiff Henderson did not receive the benefit of his bargain
`and otherwise paid a price premium for the MacBook, amounting to injury.
`39.
`Despite being deceived, Plaintiff Henderson wishes to and is likely to continue
`purchasing and using Defendant’s laptops, but only if Defendant accurately discloses the Clearance
`
`FIRST AMENDED 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 43 Filed 06/17/22 Page 13 of 80
`
`
`
`Defect at the point of sale. Although Plaintiff Henderson regularly visits stores and online retailers
`that carry the MacBooks, because Plaintiff Henderson was deceived in the past by Defendant, absent
`an injunction, he will be unable to rely with confidence on whether the MacBooks come substantially
`free of the Clearance Defect. Therefore, Plaintiff Henderson will abstain from purchasing the
`MacBook even though he would like to do so in the future.