Apple iPhone Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed on All Claims

A federal judge has dismissed all claims in an iPhone class action lawsuit that alleged Apple had used Error 53 to render the devices inoperable.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria determined that given remedial actions already taken by Apple, the plaintiffs do not have standing to seek injunctive relief.

Since Apple has already fixed the software problem and started reimbursing affected users for their losses, the judge said, the plaintiffs can’t seek a court order requiring Apple to do what it has already done.

As for plaintiffs’ request for an order requiring Apple to cease its allegedly misleading advertising, the judge found there is no danger of the plaintiffs being misled in the future since they already know about the alleged deception.

Judge Chhabria found that plaintiffs do have standing to seek monetary relief from Apple, but he dismissed their remaining claims for other reasons. Their claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation were dismissed based on a rule that limits compensation under those claims to only “physical damage to property . . . or personal injury.” The plaintiffs had plausibly alleged only economic harm, the judge found.

The judge also determined that the plaintiffs’ allegations were not specific enough to plead a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Judge Chhabria said the plaintiffs will have a chance to re-plead their dismissed claims.

Plaintiffs filed this Apple lawsuit in February 2016. They alleged that Apple pushed out an operating system update for iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus smartphones that checks to see if the phone’s Touch ID fingerprint sensor is still in place. If the check fails, they say, the phone displays the Error 53 message and becomes inoperable. Plaintiffs claimed Apple had refused to fix the problem.

Apple moved to dismiss the lawsuit soon after it was filed, arguing that it had already fixed the problem and rendered the plaintiff’s claims moot. The company said it resolved the Error 53 problem by pushing out a new operating system update, and that it had set up a reimbursement program that covers affected users’ out-of-pocket costs. Following those actions, the company argued, there was “nothing left to litigate.”

Plaintiffs countered that neither they nor proposed Class Members have received reimbursement from Apple. Nor has Apple proven that it notified affected users about the reimbursement program, the plaintiffs said. They also argued that they got “marginal-to-no results” in their attempts to install the update intended to restore their iPhone.

The Touch ID validation check ran in operating system updates from iOS 8.0.1 and later. Any non-OEM parts used to replace the iPhone screen, Home button, or flex cable could cause the validation check to trigger Error 53. Apple says Error 53 was a security measure designed to prevent fraudulent access to the device.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Darrell L. Cochran, Jason P. Amala, Loren A. Cochran, Kevin H. Hastings and Christopher E. Love of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC.

The Apple iPhone Error 53 Class Action Lawsuit is Nicholas Lusson, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00705-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Aug. 31, 2016, iPhone users argue that the additional facts noted in their third amended class action complaint prove Apple knew a software update would cause the Error 53 defect but intentionally retained these features anyway.

UPDATE 2: On Oct. 19, 2016, Apple will continue to face a consumer class action lawsuit following a federal judge’s partial denial of the company’s motion to dismiss.

UPDATE 3: On Sept. 1, 2017, Apple agreed to settle individual claims with 169 iPhone users who allege their devices were wiped clean after a software update. If approved, the Apple settlement would resolve the individual claims of the 169 affected iPhone users, but would also leave open the possibility for other consumers to pursue a class action lawsuit against Apple.