Turner v. Apple, Inc.

No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2025) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · July 16, 2025 · No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Alasdair Turner's motion for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2). The court held that individualized questions concerning user permission and cellular-data usage defeated predominance, and that Turner lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. The court denied as moot the parties' motions to exclude expert testimony and Apple's motion for leave to file a sur-reply.

Holdings

  1. The court would evaluate class certification only for the narrower class covering iOS 13.0–13.5, because the broader definition proposed in the certification motion was not pleaded in the operative complaint and its expansion of potential liability and class membership was not minor.
  2. The proposed class satisfied numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.
  3. The proposed damages class could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) because individualized questions concerning user permission, whether the alleged code consumed data in violation of each user's settings, and damages predominated over common questions.
  4. Turner could not certify an injunctive-relief class under Rule 23(b)(2) because he lacked Article III standing to seek an injunction.
  5. The parties' motions to exclude expert testimony were denied as moot because the challenged testimony did not bear on the court's reasons for denying class certification.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the proposed class could be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 after limiting the class definition to iOS 13.0–13.5, as alleged in the operative complaint.
  2. Whether common issues predominated over individualized questions concerning users' cellular-data permissions, the operation of allegedly malfunctioning code, and damages.
  3. Whether Turner had Article III standing to represent an injunctive-relief class under Rule 23(b)(2).
  4. Whether the parties' Daubert motions to exclude expert testimony should be decided at the class-certification stage.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (25)

  • S.F. Baykeeper v. City of Sunnyvale, No. 5:20-cv-00824, 2025 WL 823266, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2025)(applied)
  • Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651, 663–65 (9th Cir. 2022)(applied)
  • Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982)(applied)
  • DZ Rsrv. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 96 F.4th 1223, 1232 (9th Cir. 2024)(applied)
  • Costelo v. Chertoff, 258 F.R.D. 600, 604–05 & n.6 (C.D. Cal. 2009)(applied)
  • Davis v. AT&T Corp., No. 15-cv-2342, 2017 WL 1155350, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)(applied)
  • Vizcarra v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 339 F.R.D. 530, 543 (N.D. Cal. 2021)(applied)
  • Grace v. Apple, Inc., 328 F.R.D. 320, 331–32 (N.D. Cal. 2018)(applied)
  • Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010)(applied)
  • Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 847 F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th Cir. 2017)(applied)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…