Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Melanie M. Blunschi (Cal. Bar No. 234264)
` melanie.blunschi@lw.com
`Nicole C. Valco (Cal. Bar No. 258506)
` nicole.valco@lw.com
`Grant E. Strother (Cal. Bar No. 284612)
` grant.strother@lw.com
`Rachel Rose Suhr (Cal. Bar No. 323531)
` rachel.suhr@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`BARRY RICHARDS, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-01095-CRB
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Date: July 22, 2022
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Place: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor
`Judge: Honorable Charles R. Breyer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on July 22, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 of the
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, located
`
`at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) will and
`
`hereby does move to dismiss with prejudice all claims brought by Plaintiff Barry Richards in the
`
`Class Action Complaint. This motion is supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities and by the Declaration of Nicole C. Valco and the Request for Judicial Notice and
`
`Incorporation by Reference filed herewith.
`
`
`
`Apple respectfully submits this motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
`
`and 12(b)(1) on the grounds that Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim for any
`
`cause of action or to establish subject matter jurisdiction over his claim for injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 27, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`/s/ Melanie M. Blunschi
`By:
`
`
` Melanie M. Blunschi
`
`
`
`
`
`Melanie M. Blunschi (Cal. Bar No. 234264)
` melanie.blunschi@lw.com
`Nicole C. Valco (Cal. Bar No. 258506)
` nicole.valco@lw.com
`Grant E. Strother (Cal. Bar No. 284612)
` grant.strother@lw.com
`Rachel Rose Suhr (Cal. Bar No. 323531)
` rachel.suhr@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .......................................................................... vii
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... vii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Computer Intrusion Claims Fail............................................................ 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s Computer Intrusion Claims Should Be
`Dismissed Because He Has Not Pled Unauthorized Access ..................... 3
`
`Plaintiff’s CFAA And CDAFA Claims Should Also Be
`Dismissed Because He Has Not Pled A Covered Loss.............................. 6
`
`Plaintiff’s CDAFA Claim Fails For Additional,
`Independent Reasons ................................................................................. 7
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Boilerplate CDAFA Claim Should Be
`Dismissed ....................................................................................... 7
`
`The Update Is Not A Disruption Or Denial Of
`Service Under Section 502(c)(5) ................................................... 8
`
`The Update Is Not A “Computer Contaminant”
`Under Section 502(c)(8) ................................................................ 9
`
`4.
`
`The Economic Loss Rule Independently Requires
`Dismissal Of The Trespass Claim............................................................ 10
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Is Not Entitled To Equitable Relief ....................................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s Equitable Claims Are Barred By Sonner ................................ 11
`
`Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Seek Injunctive Relief ................................ 13
`
`Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim For Unjust Enrichment ......................... 13
`
`Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Under The UCL ................................... 14
`
`C.
`
`Leave To Amend Should Be Denied ................................................................... 15
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Adams v. Cole Haan, LLC,
`2020 WL 5648605 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020) ..........................................................................12
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`AtPac, Inc. v. Aptitude Solutions, Inc.,
`730 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (E.D. Cal. 2020)......................................................................................6
`
`Axelrod v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
`2022 WL 976971 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) ...........................................................................12
`
`Baggett v. Hewlett Packard, Inc.,
`2009 WL 3178066 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2009) ..................................................................10, 11
`
`Barrett v. Apple Inc.,
`523 F. Supp. 3d 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................11
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Berkla v. Corel Corp.,
`302 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Biesenbach v. Does 1-3,
`2022 WL 204358 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2022) ..............................................................................6
`
`Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.,
`631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................13
`
`Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler,
`534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................14
`
`Correia v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
`2019 WL 2120967 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2019) ...........................................................................10
`
`Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`144 Cal. App. 4th 824 (2006) ..................................................................................................14
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ...........................................................................................................11, 12
`
`Eclectic Props. E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co.,
`751 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................3, 7
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Enki Corp. v. Freedman,
`2014 WL 261798 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2014) ..........................................................................4, 5
`
`In re Facebook Privacy Litig.,
`2011 WL 6176208 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2011) ..........................................................................9
`
`In re Facebook Privacy Litig.,
`791 F. Supp. 2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .......................................................................................5
`
`Flextronics Int’l Ltd. v. Parametric Tech. Corp.,
`2014 WL 2213910 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2014) ...........................................................................9
`
`Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`2016 WL 454083 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016) .............................................................................13
`
`Gonzales v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`305 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .....................................................................................8
`
`In re Google Android Consumer Privacy Litig.,
`2014 WL 988889 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2014) .............................................................................7
`
`Hassell v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`2020 WL 7173218 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020) ...........................................................................12
`
`Heieck v. Fed. Signal Corp.,
`2019 WL 6873869 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) .............................................................................7
`
`Herskowitz v. Apple Inc.,
`940 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ...................................................................................14
`
`HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`2022 WL 1132814 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022) ..............................................................................4
`
`Hunter v. Nature’s Way Prods, LLC,
`2018 WL 340233 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018) ...............................................................................13
`
`J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory,
`598 P.2d 60 (1979) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`Jimenez v. Sup. Ct.,
`58 P.3d 450 (Cal. 2002) ...........................................................................................................10
`
`Julian v. TTE Tech., Inc.,
`2020 WL 6743912 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020) ........................................................................12
`
`Kalitta Air, LLC v. Cent. Tex. Airborne Sys., Inc.,
`315 Fed. App’x 603 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................10, 11
`
`Kerkorian v. Samsung Elecs. Am.,
`2021 WL 5399449 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2021) .........................................................................10
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Lateral Link Grp., LLC v. Springut,
`2015 WL 12778396 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2015) ........................................................................9
`
`Loc. Ventures & Investments, LLC v. Open Found.,
`2019 WL 7877936 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2019) ...........................................................................8
`
`Los Angeles Mem’. Coliseum Commn. v. Nat’l Football League,
`634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................12
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...................................................................................13
`
`Lusson v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 WL 10932723 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) .................................................................10, 11
`
`LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka,
`581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................4
`
`In re MacBook Keyboard Litig.,
`2020 WL 6047253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020)..........................................................................12
`
`Marcus v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 151489 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015) ..............................................................................13
`
`Miller v. Nat’l Broad. Co.,
`187 Cal. App. 3d 1463 (1986) ...................................................................................................6
`
`New You Spa v. Citizen’s Ins. Grp.,
`2021 WL 1788448 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2021) ...........................................................................15
`
`Nikoopour v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`2018 WL 3007918 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2018) ..........................................................................15
`
`NovelPoster v. Javitch Canfield Grp.,
`140 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................6, 7
`
`O’Connor v. Wells Fargo, N.A.,
`2014 WL 4802994 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2014) ........................................................................12
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. TERiX Comput. Co., Inc.,
`2014 WL 31344 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2014) ..................................................................................5
`
`Parziale v. HP, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5798274 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020) ......................................................................5, 6
`
`Price v. Apple Inc.,
`2022 WL 1032472 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2022) .............................................................................6
`
`Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp.,
`34 Cal. 4th 979 (2004) .............................................................................................................10
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`
`Satmodo, LLC v. Whenever Commc’ns, LLC,
`2017 WL 1365839 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2017) ........................................................................5, 8
`
`Sharma v. Volkswagen AG,
`524 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .....................................................................................12
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................11, 12
`
`In re Sony,
`758 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................14
`
`Spengler v. L.A. Cnty. Jail Med.,
`2017 WL 10526034 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2017) .......................................................................13
`
`Strumlauf v. Starbucks Corp.,
`192 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................13
`
`Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Victor,
`43 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................5
`
`Taleshpour v. Apple Inc.,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................14
`
`Ubisoft, Inc. v. Kruk,
`2021 WL 3472833 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2021) ..............................................................................8
`
`United States v. Nosal,
`676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................4
`
`United States v. Nosal,
`844 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................4
`
`United States v. Santos,
`553 U.S. 507 (2008) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Veritas Techs. LCC v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.,
`2022 WL 222527 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022) ............................................................................12
`
`Williams v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,
`2015 WL 13626022 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2015) ..........................................................................13
`
`STATUTES
`
`18 U.S.C.
`§ 1030(a)(5) ...........................................................................................................................3, 4
`§ 1030(c)(4) ...............................................................................................................................7
`§ 1030(e)(11) .........................................................................................................................6, 7
`§ 1030(g) ....................................................................................................................................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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`
`Cal. Penal Code
`§ 502(b)(12) ...............................................................................................................................9
`§ 502(c)(4) .........................................................................................................................3, 5, 7
`§ 502(c)(5) .........................................................................................................................5, 7, 8
`§ 502(c)(7) .........................................................................................................................5, 8, 9
`§ 502(c)(8) .........................................................................................................................5, 8, 9
`§ 502(d)(1) .................................................................................................................................8
`§ 502(e)(1) .................................................................................................................................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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Whether Plaintiff’s claims against Apple should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`for failure to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief should be dismissed under
`
`Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiff Barry Richards brings an assortment of claims under anti-hacking provisions of
`
`federal and California law based on allegations that his Apple HomePod wireless speaker
`
`malfunctioned after a routine update to version 14.6 of the device’s operating system. Frustrated
`
`that the alleged issue was not covered by any express warranty, Plaintiff strings together a handful
`
`of anecdotes from Reddit users claiming that some of their HomePod devices experienced different
`
`technical issues following the software update to make the remarkable allegation that “[p]lanned
`
`obsolescence is part of Apple’s business model.” Compl. ¶ 18. On that theory, he seeks sweeping
`
`relief that includes not only every variety of damages (compensatory, statutory, punitive) but
`
`restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief as well. But Apple did not hack or otherwise intrude
`
`on Plaintiff’s HomePod: as judicially noticeable documents make clear, Plaintiff agreed to the
`
`HomePod Software License Agreement (“SLA”), which permits Apple to “download and install
`
`automatic HomePod Software Updates onto [his] HomePod” and expressly disclaims any warranty
`
`covering the software (the separate hardware warranty had expired nearly a year earlier). Ex. A §§
`
`1(c), 7.3, 7.4; Ex. B.1
`
`Apple seeks dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s claims, which fall into two categories:
`
`(1) “computer intrusion” claims, including alleged violations of the federal Computer Fraud and
`
`Abuse Act (the “CFAA”) and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act
`
`(the “CDAFA”), as well as common law trespass, and (2) equitable claims, including alleged
`
`unjust enrichment and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).
`
`
`1 All exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Nicole C. Valco (“Valco Declaration”) in support
`of this Motion and are properly considered by the Court for the reasons set forth in Apple’s
`concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice and Incorporation by Reference.
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`
`Computer Intrusion Claims. Plaintiff’s computer intrusion claims should be dismissed on
`
`multiple independent grounds. First, Plaintiff’s consent in the SLA allowing Apple to download
`
`and install automatic software updates on his HomePod precludes any allegation that Apple’s
`
`access was “without authorization” as required for his CFAA claims under 18 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1030(a)(5)(B)–(C), “without permission” as required for his CDAFA claims under Penal Code
`
`sections 502(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(7), or an “unauthorized entry” as required for common law
`
`trespass. These causes of action are aimed at preventing conduct tantamount to “breaking and
`
`entering”; the law does not support Plaintiff’s theory that a routine, automatic, authorized software
`
`update is a “digital intrusion” under these statutes. hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 2022 WL
`
`1132814, at *13 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022) (“[T]he CFAA is best understood as an anti-intrusion
`
`statute.”); Cal. Penal Code § 502(a) (reflecting legislative intent to target the “proliferation of
`
`computer crime and other forms of unauthorized access to computers …”); Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110, 123 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“[V]oluntary installation runs counter to the notion
`
`that the alleged act was a trespass.”).
`
`Second, Plaintiff has not alleged that he has incurred any type of loss cognizable under the
`
`CFAA’s definition of loss (18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11)), such as actual costs incurred responding to
`
`an unauthorized intrusion or concrete damages incurred because of interruption of service. Courts
`
`have interpreted the CDAFA (Cal. Penal Code § 502(e)(1)) to require the same types of losses as
`
`the CFAA.
`
`Third, Courts routinely grant motions to dismiss CDAFA claims that merely parrot the
`
`language of the statute. And that is all the Complaint does here.
`
`Fourth, a routine, authorized software update is not a “denial” or “disruption of computer
`
`services” under California Penal Code section 502(c)(5) or a “computer contaminant” that acted
`
`without authorization by overcoming technological access barriers under section 502(c)(8).
`
`Finally, the economic loss rule further bars the trespass claim because it sounds in contract,
`
`not tort: Plaintiff alleges that a software update—governed by a contract (the SLA)—diminished
`
`his HomePod’s value. He thus seeks to recover economic losses that he attributes to an allegedly
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`
`defective software update, not compensatory damages for personal injury or physical damage to
`
`other property.
`
`Equitable Claims. Plaintiff’s equitable claims are likewise deficient in multiple respects.
`
`First, Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), requires dismissal of
`
`Plaintiff’s equitable claims because Plaintiff has not pled that he lacks an adequate remedy at law
`
`and suffered irreparable harm—and he cannot do so, given that he is also seeking damages here.
`
`Plaintiff’s own pleading acknowledges the existence of legal remedies, so Plaintiff cannot pursue
`
`equitable relief.
`
`Second, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to seek injunctive relief. There is no threat of
`
`repeated future injury to Plaintiff: his claims are based on a single software update that purportedly
`
`rendered his HomePod inoperable, and he alleges no intent to purchase another HomePod. Nor
`
`can he, as Apple discontinued that product line in March 2021.
`
`Third, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim further fails because express contracts govern
`
`HomePod—and because unjust enrichment is not a stand-alone cause of action anyway.
`
`Fourth, Plaintiff’s UCL claim must be dismissed because he has failed to allege any
`
`“unlawful” conduct by Apple. And as a matter of law, he cannot allege the “substantial injury”
`
`required to pursue a claim under the UCL’s “unfair” prong where he alleges that the product defect
`
`arose after the expiration of the express warranty term. In any event, his conclusory and anecdotal
`
`allegations do not suffice to allege an unfair business practice.
`
`For these reasons, Apple respectfully requests dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety for
`
`failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Fed. R. Evid. 12(b)(6)) and dismissal of
`
`Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief for lack of Article III standing (id. 12(b)(1)). Because all
`
`of Plaintiff’s claims suffer from fundamental legal defects that cannot be cured, Apple requests
`
`dismissal with prejudice.
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) sold the HomePod wireless speaker from January 2018 to March
`
`2021. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 5. The HomePod came with Apple’s standard one-year limited hardware
`
`warranty providing for repair, replacement, or a refund if the device suffered any “defects in
`
`materials and workmanship” within one year from the date of the original retail purchase. Ex. B
`
`(“Hardware Warranty”) at 2; see also Compl. ¶ 15 (discussing the “1-year warranty”). This limited
`
`warranty was “exclusive and in lieu of all other warranties.” Ex. B at 1. The Hardware Warranty
`
`did not cover any software sold with the HomePod and expressly disclaimed any guarantee that
`
`the HomePod’s operation would “be uninterrupted or error-free.” Id.
`
`The HomePod runs on Apple’s software, which allows it to integrate with the Apple iPhone
`
`and wirelessly link with other HomePod devices. Compl. ¶ 2. Apple releases periodic updates to
`
`its HomePod software. See id. ¶¶ 6-7, 9. HomePod users agree to a separate HomePod Software
`
`Licensing Agreement (“SLA”), which governs use of the HomePod operating software and “any
`
`HomePod Software Updates provided by Apple” (collectively, the “HomePod Software”). Ex. A
`
`(“SLA”) § 1(a). Under the SLA, “[b]y using the HomePod Software,” HomePod users “agree
`
`that Apple may download and install automatic HomePod Software Updates onto [their]
`
`HomePod.” Id. § 1(c) (bold in original).
`
`The SLA disclaims all warranties in connection with HomePod Software:
`
`TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
`LAW, THE HOMEPOD SOFTWARE AND SERVICES ARE
`PROVIDED “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE”, WITH ALL
`FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND
`APPLE … HEREBY DISCLAIM[S] ALL WARRANTIES AND
`CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE HOMEPOD
`SOFTWARE AND SERVICES, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED
`OR STATUTORY … .
`
`Id. § 7.3. The SLA further discloses that Apple does not warrant against interruption of the
`
`HomePod Software, or that HomePod Software defects will be corrected:
`
`APPLE DOES NOT WARRANT AGAINST INTERFERENCE
`WITH [USER] ENJOYMENT OF THE HOMEPOD SOFTWARE
`AND SERVICES, THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN,
`OR SERVICES PERFORMED OR PROVIDED BY, THE
`HOMEPOD
`SOFTWARE WILL
`MEET
`[USER]
`REQUIREMENTS, THAT THE OPERATION OF THE
`
`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
`
`A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
`S A N F R A N C I S C O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF. APPLE INC.’S MOT. TO DISMISS COMPL.
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-01095-CRB
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-01095-CRB Document 24 Filed 04/27/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`
`HOMEPOD SOFTWARE AND SERVICES WILL BE
`UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, THAT ANY SERVICE
`WILL CONTINUE TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, [OR] THAT
`DEFECTS IN THE HOMEPOD SOFTWARE OR SERVICES
`WILL BE CORRECTED….
`
`Id. § 7.4. Users agree to “ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
`
`REPAIR OR CORRECTION” should the HomePod Software “PROVE DEFECTIVE.” Id. § 7.6.2
`
`Plaintiff alleges he purchased a HomePod from retailer Other World Computing in or
`
`around October 2019. Compl. ¶¶ 22-23. Plaintiff does not specify whether he purchased a new
`
`HomePod or how much he paid. See id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff concedes that his HomePod worked “as
`
`intended” for nearly two years, but alleges that his HomePod “malfunctioned and would not reset”
`
`at some unidentified time after it automatically installed Software Version 14.6 (the “Update”),
`
`which Apple released in May 2021 to improve general performance and stability. Id. ¶¶ 7-8, 23.
`
`Plaintiff then allegedly sought repair services at an unspecified Apple Authorized Service Provider
`
`(not Apple), who purportedly offered to “match Apple’s cost of $279 to repair the device.” Id. ¶
`
`23. Plaintiff does not allege that he contacted Apple directly about the issues he encountered or to
`
`request any refund or repair. Plaintiff claims that he “lost the use of his HomePod as a result of the
`
`[Update].” Id. He does not allege that he incurred any costs to repair or replace his HomePod or
`
`that he paid anyone to identify any cause of his HomePod’s alleged malfunction. Id.
`
`To support his claim that the Update caused widespread issues, Plaintiff alleges that some
`
`consumers took to online forums to complain that the Update “bricked” their HomePod devices.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 10-11. As support, the Complaint quotes a handful of comments from a Reddit thread
`
`describing a variety of different problems. Id. ¶ 11. For example, one owner describes a failure to
`
`power up, others indicate that the HomePod would power up but would not otherwise function,
`
`and another says that only one of