`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`EAST ST. LOUIS DIVISION
`
`Elizabeth Steines, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`3:22-cv-03099
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`- against -
`
`Class Action Complaint
`
`Apple, Inc.,
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief, except for allegations about Plaintiff, which
`
`are based on personal knowledge:
`
`1. Apple, Inc. (“Defendant”) manufactures, markets, and sells the iPhone smartphone,
`
`pictured next to the box it is sold in (“Product”).12
`
`
`1 References to a model or version of an iPhone are for example only, as the subject devices include the 12 through
`14 series.
`2 This action is not related to or coordinated with ongoing enforcement activities in other countries related to
`substantially similar allegations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #2
`
`2.
`
`To use the Product requires electricity, supplied by a charger, which refers to a power
`
`adapter (left) plugged into an outlet with a cable (right) taking energy from a wall to the phone.
`
`3. An iPhone purchaser previously received a charger with their phone so they could
`
`supply it with energy and use it for its intended purposes, whether email, browsing the internet,
`
`
`
`work, reading or playing games.
`
`4.
`
`Beginning last year, Defendant no longer included the power adapter, citing
`
`environmental benefits from forgoing the mining of precious metals required for its production
`
`and a reduction in waste, presumably by encouraging customers to use their old chargers.
`
`5.
`
`This explanation fails to account for the situation of a large percentage of iPhone
`
`purchasers for multiple reasons.
`
`6.
`
`First, not all iPhone purchasers previously had iPhones or other Apple devices, which
`
`meant they did not have extra or any chargers to use.
`
`7.
`
`Second, iPhone purchasers upgrading to a new model may (1) no longer have the
`
`charger which came with their device, (2) not have received a charger with their prior iPhone, (3)
`
`have a charger which is no longer compatible with the iPhone they are buying and/or (4) have a
`
`charger which has become non-functional due to age and/or usage.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff and consumers were not aware they were purchasing an incomplete Product,
`
`devoid of essential functionality, because this was only disclosed on the back of the box, in small
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #3
`
`print, stating, “Includes: iPhone 14 Pro Max and USB-C to Lightning Cable; power adapter and
`
`headphones sold separately.”
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`By selling the Product without a charger, it is not adequate for its intended use, which
`
`was to function as a phone and mini-computer, because it requires power or energy to operate.
`
`10. Where the utility of a good depends upon another good which is not provided by the
`
`manufacturer, the good is considered defective or at a minimum, diminished in value.
`
`11. By not providing a charger, customers like Plaintiff are forced to spend additional
`
`money on a charger.
`
`12. When Defendant removed the charger, not only was the price of the Product not
`
`correspondingly reduced by the amount of the power adapter, the price increased, unrelated to
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #4
`
`other added functionality which could justify this increase.
`
`13.
`
`If a customer realizes in the store that the iPhone they purchased does not come with
`
`a charger, they will almost always want to go home with a charger.
`
`14. Though lower-priced chargers are available online, the stores where most purchases
`
`are made – operated by Apple and cell phone companies – only sell costly chargers for not less
`
`than $30.
`
`15. Defendant could have taken other measures to promote environmental sustainability,
`
`by adopting industry standard USB-C chargers, instead of rendering the Product non-functional
`
`unless an additional purchase was made.
`
`16. Defendant could have made chargers available for free to iPhone purchasers who
`
`request them.
`
`17. As a result of the false and misleading representations and omissions, the Product is
`
`sold for a price premium, approximately no less than $700 for the lowest price version, excluding
`
`tax and sales.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`18.
`
`Jurisdiction is based on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1332(d)(2).
`
`19. The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, including any statutory and
`
`punitive damages, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`20. Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois.
`
`21. Defendant is a California corporation with a principal place of business in California.
`
`22. The class of persons Plaintiff seeks to represent includes persons who are citizens of
`
`different states from which Defendant is a citizen.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #5
`
`23. The members of the class Plaintiff seeks to represent are more than 100, because the
`
`Product has been sold with the representations described here for several years, from Defendant’s
`
`stores and website, and from third-parties including mobile phone companies and retail stores and
`
`online in the States covered by Plaintiff’s proposed classes.
`
`24. Venue is in this District with assignment to the East St. Louis Division because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in Madison County,
`
`including Plaintiff’s purchase and/or use of the Product, and awareness of and/or experiences with
`
`the issues described here.
`
`Parties
`
`25. Plaintiff Elizabeth Steines is a citizen of Godfrey, Madison County, Illinois.
`
`26. Defendant is a California corporation with a principal place of business in California.
`
`27. Plaintiff purchased an iPhone at a T-Mobile Store, 317 Homer M Adams Pkwy Ste
`
`I, Alton IL 62002 between roughly December 2021 and May 2022.
`
`28. Plaintiff expected the iPhone would come with a charger so she could use her device.
`
`29. Plaintiff did not have numerous chargers from previous iPhones because like most
`
`people, she did not get a new one every year.
`
`30. Plaintiff’s most recent iPhone purchase was made more than two years ago when
`
`chargers were included and/or were not compatible with the current iPhone.
`
`31. Plaintiff expected that if she was buying something which required the purchase of
`
`another item to render the purchase functional, this information would be prominently disclosed
`
`to her.
`
`32. Plaintiff bought the Product at or exceeding the above-referenced price.
`
`33. Plaintiff paid more for the Product than she would have had she known it did not
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #6
`
`come with a necessary element, a charger, as she would not have bought it or paid less.
`
`34. Plaintiff was forced to pay at least $30 for an additional charger and/or go without a
`
`charger until she was able to buy one to charge and use her phone.
`
`35. Plaintiff intends to, seeks to, and will purchase an iPhone again at the price indicated
`
`if she could do so with assurances it comes with the necessary components to render it functional
`
`or if the price is reduced by the amount of the charger.
`
`36. Plaintiff is unable to rely on the labeling of not only iPhones, but other products
`
`where another item is required and essential for use, such as a remote control without batteries,
`
`because she is unsure whether she would be buying only part of what she expects.
`
`Class Allegations
`
`37. Plaintiff seeks certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of the following classes:
`
`Illinois Class: All persons in the State of Illinois who
`purchased
`the Product during
`the statutes of
`limitations for each cause of action alleged; and
`
`Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class: All persons in
`the States of Arkansas, South Dakota, Wyoming,
`North Carolina, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Mississippi,
`Virginia, and Oklahoma, who purchased the Product
`during the statutes of limitations for each cause of
`action alleged.
`
`38. Common questions of issues, law, and fact predominate and include whether
`
`Defendant’s representations were and are misleading and if Plaintiff and class members are entitled
`
`to damages.
`
`39. Plaintiff’s claims and basis for relief are typical to other members because all were
`
`subjected to the same unfair, misleading, and deceptive representations, omissions, and actions.
`
`40. Plaintiff is an adequate representative because her interests do not conflict with other
`
`members.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #7
`
`41. No individual inquiry is necessary since the focus is only on Defendant’s practices
`
`and the class is definable and ascertainable.
`
`42.
`
`Individual actions would risk inconsistent results, be repetitive and are impractical
`
`to justify, as the claims are modest relative to the scope of the harm.
`
`43. Plaintiff’s counsel is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation
`
`and intends to protect class members’ interests adequately and fairly.
`
`44. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because the practices continue.
`
`Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
`(“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.
`
`45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
`
`46. Plaintiff relied on a basic expectation that a mobile phone requiring the necessary
`
`element for functionality, such as a charger, would be included with the phone, because anything
`
`else would be the sale of an incomplete and/or non-functional product.
`
`47. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if the true facts had
`
`been known, suffering damages.
`
` Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts
` (Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class)
`
`48. The Consumer Fraud Acts of the States in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class are
`
`similar to the consumer protection statute invoked by Plaintiff and prohibit the use of unfair or
`
`deceptive business practices in the conduct of commerce.
`
`49. The members of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class reserve their rights to assert
`
`their consumer protection claims under the Consumer Fraud Acts of the States they represent
`
`and/or the consumer protection statute invoked by Plaintiff.
`
`50. Defendant intended that members of the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class would
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #8
`
`rely upon its deceptive conduct, which they did, suffering damages.
`
`Breach of Contract
`
`51. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract for the sale of the Product.
`
`52. The terms included the Product would include the necessary components to render it
`
`functional, such as a charger.
`
`53. Plaintiff paid money for the Product, which Defendant received.
`
`54. Defendant breached the contract because the Product did not include the necessary
`
`components to render it functional, such as a charger.
`
`55. Plaintiff was injured by having to go without a charger and/or paying additional
`
`money for a charger, without paying any reduced price for the Product.
`
`Breaches of Express Warranty,
`Implied Warranty of Merchantability/Fitness for a Particular Purpose
`and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.
`
`
`56. The Product was manufactured, identified, marketed, and sold by Defendant and
`
`expressly and impliedly warranted to Plaintiff that it included the necessary elements for
`
`functionality, such as a charger, because anything else would be the sale of an incomplete and/or
`
`non-functional product.
`
`57. Defendant directly marketed the Product to Plaintiff through its advertisements and
`
`marketing, through various forms of media, on the packaging, in print circulars, direct mail,
`
`product descriptions distributed to resellers, and targeted digital advertising.
`
`58. Defendant knew the product attributes that potential customers like Plaintiff were
`
`seeking and developed its marketing and labeling to directly meet those needs and desires.
`
`59. Defendant’s representations about the Product were conveyed in writing and
`
`promised it would be defect-free, and Plaintiff understood this meant that it included the necessary
`
`elements for functionality, such as a charger, because anything else would be the sale of an
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #9
`
`incomplete and/or non-functional product.
`
`60. Defendant’s representations affirmed and promised that the Product (1) included the
`
`necessary elements for functionality, such as a charger, by depicting it in ads that highlighted its
`
`capabilities and features, which required the device to be on with sufficient power and (2) would
`
`not be sold missing any essential components that would render it incomplete and/or non-
`
`functional.
`
`61. Defendant described the Product so Plaintiff believed it included the necessary
`
`elements for functionality, such as a charger, because anything else would be the sale of an
`
`incomplete and/or non-functional product, which became part of the basis of the bargain that it
`
`would conform to its affirmations and promises.
`
`62. Defendant had a duty to disclose and/or provide non-deceptive descriptions and
`
`marketing of the Product.
`
`63. This duty is based on Defendant’s outsized role in the market for this type of Product,
`
`a company known for its commitment to its customers, often with the phrase, “it just works,”
`
`which was false because the absence of a power source meant it could not work.
`
`64. Plaintiff recently became aware of Defendant’s breach of the Product’s warranties.
`
`65. Plaintiff provided or provides notice to Defendant, its agents, representatives,
`
`retailers, and their employees that it breached the Product’s express and implied warranties.
`
`66. Defendant received notice and should have been aware of these issues due to
`
`complaints by third-parties, including regulators, competitors, and consumers, to its main offices,
`
`and by consumers through online forums.
`
`67. Defendant has been under investigation in countries including Brazil, where it was
`
`fined by governmental authorities for failing to provide a charger with its iPhones.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #10
`
`68. Authorities there even issued orders requiring Defendant to include a charger with
`
`its iPhones based on principles of fair dealing and consumer expectations to receive a functional
`
`device.
`
`69. The Product did not conform to its affirmations of fact and promises due to
`
`Defendant’s actions.
`
`70. The Product was not merchantable because it was not fit to pass in the trade as
`
`advertised, not fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended and did not conform to the
`
`promises or affirmations of fact made on the packaging, container or label, because it did not
`
`include the necessary elements for functionality, such as a charger.
`
`71. The Product was not merchantable because Defendant had reason to know the
`
`particular purpose for which the Product was bought by Plaintiff, because she expected it would
`
`function as a smartphone, which meant the ability to make calls, send text messages, use the
`
`internet, study, do work and/or play games among other things, and she relied on Defendant’s skill
`
`and judgment to select or furnish such a suitable product.
`
`Negligent Misrepresentation
`
`72. Defendant had a duty to truthfully represent the Product, which it breached.
`
`73. This duty was non-delegable, based on Defendant’s position, holding itself out as
`
`having special knowledge and experience in this area, a trusted company known for its
`
`commitment to providing products that are reliable and just work, without customers having to
`
`know all the technical details of how those things happen.
`
`74. These representations and omissions went beyond the specific representations on the
`
`packaging, as they incorporated the extra-labeling promises and commitments to quality,
`
`transparency and putting customers first that Defendant has been known for.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #11
`
`75. These promises were outside of the standard representations that other companies
`
`may make in a standard arms-length, context where products are sold through retailers.
`
`76. The representations took advantage of consumers’ cognitive shortcuts made at the
`
`point-of-sale and their trust in Defendant.
`
`77. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on these negligent misrepresentations and
`
`omissions, which served to induce and did induce, her purchase of the Product.
`
`Fraud
`
`78. Defendant misrepresented and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of the Product,
`
`that it contained cream, a dairy ingredient.
`
`79. Defendant is the one of the two largest sellers of smartphones in the world, and it
`
`knew a significant percentage of its customers would be negatively affected by removing the
`
`charging capability from the iPhone.
`
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`80. Defendant obtained benefits and monies because the Product was not as represented
`
`and expected, to the detriment and impoverishment of Plaintiff and class members, who seek
`
`restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Demand and Prayer for Relief
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues.
`
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment:
`
`1. Declaring this a proper class action, certifying Plaintiff as representative and the
`
`undersigned as counsel for the class;
`
`2. Injunctive relief to remove, correct and/or refrain from the challenged practices;
`
`3. Awarding monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages and interest;
`
`4. Awarding costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for Plaintiff's attorneys and
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03099-MAB Document 1 Filed 12/27/22 Page 12 of 12 Page ID #12
`
`experts; and
`
`5. Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: December 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Spencer Sheehan
`Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
`60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
`Great Neck NY 11021
`(516) 268-7080
`spencer@spencersheehan.com
`
`12
`
`