Apple iMessage Class Action Lawsuit Denied Certification

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Earlier this month, a California federal judge refused to certify a proposed Class of former iPhone users who are part of the Apple iMessage class action lawsuit, reasoning that the Class as defined in the complaint was too broad. According to the Apple class action lawsuit, the plaintiff and the proposed Class allegedly stopped receiving text messages after they switched to non-Apple brand smartphones.

Plaintiff Adrienne Moore, who filed this this iMessage class action lawsuit back in May 2014, asked the court to certify a Class of all iPhone users within the United States who switched from an Apple phone to a non-Apple device beginning in Oct. 12, 2011 through the present. However, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh denied Class certification, finding the Class to be overbroad because not all users who switch to a non-Apple phone suffered injury.

According to Judge Koh’s order denying Class certification, she acknowledged that Moore was able to present enough evidence to support her individual claim of harm when the iMessage service did not deliver text messages to her new Android phone from Apple users. However, she found that the Class of users Moore sought to represent in this Apple iMessage class action lawsuit could not all have suffered the same injury-in-fact. Additionally, it is possible the plaintiff’s Verizon Wireless service contract may have been affected by the iMessage glitch, but the same cannot be said for all wireless phone users because not all of their service contracts include texting services.

“As a threshold matter, the court agrees with defendant that plaintiff’s proposed class includes individuals who, by definition, could not have been injured by defendant’s alleged wrongful conduct,” Judge Koh states in her order denying class certification for the iMessage class action lawsuit. “While many wireless service agreements may include the contractual right to send and receive text messages, plaintiff does not and cannot contend that every proposed class member’s wireless service agreement included the right to receive text messages.”

As a result, Judge Koh ruled that the proposed Apple iMessage class action lawsuit did not meet commonality requirement for Class certification, finding that although it would be possible for the plaintiff to prove iMessage caused her and others to lose text messages, it would require an individual examination of each user’s contract to determine if the iMessage defect interfered with their wireless contracts.

As previously stated, Moore originally filed this Apple iMessage class action lawsuit in May 2014, alleging she switched from Apple’s iPhone 4 to the Samsung S5 cellphone. She claims that after the switch, she could no longer receive text messages from iPhone and iPad users sent through the iMessage system. The plaintiff claims that Apple knew about the iMessage glitch, but did nothing to inform her or other former Apple iPhone users about the issue.

In October 2014, Moore agreed to enter into private mediation with Apple over her breach of contract claims in this iMessage class action lawsuit. However, a month later Judge Koh ordered Apple to face the disappearing iMessage charges against them.

The plaintiff is represented by Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm.

The Apple iMessage Class Action Lawsuit is Moore v. Apple Inc., Case No.  5:14-cv-02269, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.