Yesterday, Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated, amended complaint in In re iPhone Application Litigation for lack of Article III standing, with leave to amend. In finding lack of standing, the Court stated that plaintiffs’ allegations were “clearly insufficient” as plaintiffs did not allege “injury in fact to themselves” and “did not identify a concrete harm from the alleged collection and tracking of their personal information sufficient to create injury in fact.” Further, the Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to allege any injury fairly traceable to Apple or any of the Mobile Industry Defendants.
In addition, the Court articulated specific deficiencies with respect to each of the causes of action, in the event plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint. These shortcomings include the fact that plaintiffs did not allege economic damages sufficient to meet the required threshold to state a civil claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court also found, as an increasing body of authority has held, that a plaintiff’s “personal information” does not constitute money or property under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
As we wrote about previously, the now-dismissed complaint synthesized multiple lawsuits filed this year against Apple and other defendants relating to the alleged transmission of “personal information,” including Unique Device IDs to application developers and mobile advertising networks.