On Monday, Choose Victor Marrero sided with Apple Inc., dismissing a criticism about false representations made in reference to its Powerbeats Professional wi-fi headphones. In keeping with the Southern District of New York opinion, the lawsuit failed to influence the court docket that Apple made false or deceptive representations concerning the product’s battery life.
The choice recounted how a New Yorker filed go well with in opposition to the corporate in January 2022 on behalf of himself and putative courses of Powerbeats purchasers from New York and Michigan, Montana, Rhode Island, Georgia, North Dakota, Virginia, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. The criticism accused Apple of overstating the headphones’ charging capabilities.
Particularly, the plaintiff mentioned that although Apple markets Powerbeats as having a battery lifetime of “as much as 9 hours of listening time” and “24 hours with the Powerbeats charging case,” one of many earbuds is often faulty. Particularly, the criticism pointed to charging or cost holding points imagined to happen because of earbud corrosion from person perspiration.
The criticism claimed that the plaintiff and others overpaid for his or her $150 headphones, and said ten claims for aid underneath state shopper safety statutes, state and federal guarantee statutes, and for breach of contract.
On this week’s opinion Choose Marrero first deferred ruling on Apple’s rivalry that the court docket couldn’t train particular jurisdiction over the claims of the putative non-New York class as a result of the claims bore no nexus to Apple’s actions in New York.
Apple’s failure to state a declare argument focused the substance of the alleged misrepresentations, asserting that the plaintiff pointed to no actionable statements. Choose Marrero agreed primarily based on the complaints contentions, discovering that Apple neither promised Powerbeats could be defect-free nor made representations guaranteeing that the product would keep its cost equally and persistently.
With out the underlying “writing” or advertising supplies containing the alleged representations, the court docket mentioned it couldn’t decide whether or not the plaintiff “misquoted or misleadingly excerpted Apple’s language, and even the place this alleged language exists.” Although Choose Marrero rejected the plausibility of the claims, the court docket permitted the plaintiff to amend his criticism by October 14.
The plaintiff is represented by Sheehan & Associates P.C., the identical counsel representing a Texas lady in a go well with in opposition to Apple over the waterproofing of one among its smartwatch fashions, in addition to dozens of different promoting circumstances. Apple is represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP.