Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Apple in Class Action Lawsuit

December 2, 2013 - GamePolitics Staff

A federal judge last week ruled that a class action cannot hold Apple responsible for apps on the iPhone and iPad that sold their users' data to advertisers. Jonathan Lalo was the lead plaintiff on a class action filed in 2010 claiming Apple had approved apps for the iPhones and iPads that intercepted personal information and tracked users' habits without authorization.

"Apple claims to review each application before offering it to its users, purports to have implemented app privacy standards, and claims to have created 'strong privacy protections' for its customers," the complaint stated.

Lalo's attorney also said that Apple claimed that "it does not allow apps to transmit data about a user without consent."

The class action said that apps such as Dictionary.com, Pandora, the Weather Channel and Backflip collected and passed along confidential data, including users' geographic location, age, gender, income, ethnicity, sexual orientation and political affiliations, to third-party ad networks.

Eighteen other class actions were consolidated with Lalo's case in multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of California. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple summary judgment on the case last Monday, finding that users could not show that they relied on Apple's alleged misrepresentations and were harmed by them.

"Critically, none of the plaintiffs presents evidence that he or she even saw, let alone read and relied upon, the alleged misrepresentations contained in the Apple Privacy Policies, SLAs [Software License Agreements], or App Store Terms and Conditions, either prior to purchasing his or her iPhone, or at any time thereafter," Koh wrote.

"Plaintiffs each allude to a vague 'understanding' regarding Apple's privacy policies without providing any evidence whatsoever concerning the basis for this understanding," the 30-page judgment states. "But a vague 'understanding' about Apple's privacy policies is not enough. To survive summary judgment, plaintiffs are required to set forth 'specific facts' in support of standing."

You can read the full ruling here.


Comments

Re: Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Apple in Class Action ...

"collected and passed along confidential data, including users' geographic location, age, gender, income, ethnicity, sexual orientation and political affiliations, to third-party ad networks."

What the hell people??? If you dont want an app to know those things, DONT TELL IT THAT. An app has never asked me my sexual orientation, political afiliation, or income, and if it did I wouldn't answer, or at least not honestly.

Seriously!

Re: Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Apple in Class Action ...

Okay, so is the reverse also true? If you don't read the SLA and accidentally violate it does the company have no recourse against you because you 'weren't aware or had no understanding?'  I highly doubt this is the case, and I'd like to see some follow-up on that, as it seems very anti-consumer to hold someone accountable to the SLA, but then to turn around and tell the writing company they don't have to follow it.

 

I guess what the judge was saying more, was that they couldn't show proof that that release of data was actually damaging to them, other than needing to charge their batteries more often.. 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician