$5 billion class action lawsuit that accused Apple of selling customer data thrown out

Earlier this year, a $5 billion class action lawsuit was Filed against Apple alleging that the company sold private customer data and song lists to data aggregators.”

Jack Purcher for Patently Apple:

The lawsuit claimed that in order “To supplement its revenues and enhance the formidability of its brand in the eyes of mobile application developers, Apple sells, rents, transmits, and/or otherwise discloses, to various third parties, information reflecting the music that its customers purchase from the iTunes Store application that comes pre-installed on their iPhones…”

Today Nexus Lexus posted a snippet of legal news stating that “A month after Apple won a ruling granting its motion to dismiss privacy claims brought under Michigan and Rhode Island law involving the privacy of people’s listening history on iTunes, a federal judge has dismissed the case with prejudice.

While US District Judge William Alsup gave plaintiffs Leigh Wheaton, Jill Paul, and Trevor Paul permission to file an amended complaint following his Oct. 25 decision dismissing their claims, they failed to meet a Nov. 14 deadline to file an amended complaint, leading Alsup to issue final judgment in the case.”

MacDailyNews Take:

Here are the full details of the original case:

18 Comments

        1. Google paying Apple is a different issue completely. If you define “customer data” loosely enough there’s no company on the planet that doesn’t engage in that practice. But if you stick to what the term normally means, as in what Facebook and Google are doing, the answer is no Apple does not do that. If the plaintiffs had real evidence they would have shown it and the case would have proceeded. If you have real evidence you should contact a lawyer and begin legal action.

            1. It is a far stretch however because the plaintiffs couldn’t produce evidence to make their case. It isn’t difficult to discover data gathering and they failed to do so. You engage in whataboutism an awful lot. You come up with zany notions about things Apple is doing and when they’re proved wrong you say what about this or what about that. Try sticking to one story.

              Again, if you have any evidence you should contact a lawyer. You’re all hat and no cattle my friend.

            2. @Not Likely

              It’s about monetizing the user base in either case. Same end, different means.

              What Facebook, Google and, yes, Apple are doing is monetizing their user base. At least in Facebook’s and Google’s case it’s how you pay for the goods. In Apple’s case you’ve already paid with money. Pimping us to Google is monetizing our existence as users.

              Your credibility is as shallow as your argument.

            3. “It’s about monetizing the user base in either case. Same end, different means.”

              Heh, that’s called moving the goalposts my wishy washy friend. Oh that thing I was talking about was proved wrong? Uhhh, uhhh, never mind, look over there!

              When you have evidence on the original point get back to me Mr. All Hat No Cattle.

            4. “No knucklehead moving the goalposts involves moving the end goal.”

              Ah. So Mr. All Hat No Cattle has nothing concrete on the original point. No facts. No evidence. Nada. Zip. Zero.

              Nice hat though.

            5. First off, I asked a question, I did not make an accusation. That was my original point.

              Then when confronted I said it wouldn’t be out of character. I based that in fact. They do monetize the user base.

              Finally, what’s this with you and cattle? Makes you spew bovine crap.

            6. “First off, I asked a question, I did not make an accusation. That was my original point.”

              Your original point was wrong. The answer to your question was no. Those are facts. When confronted you pivoted and engaged in whataboutism. End of story.

              Are you telling me you don’t understand the expression “all hat no cattle”? It means you’re all talk and no substance. All you do is talk. Endlessly. About Apple.

            7. I did not insist that Apple did so, I asked if it was so. I did state that it wouldn’t be out of character.

              It’s also fact that Apple makes money from selling aspects of it’s user base. Such as it’s deal with Google. That too is fact

              All this talk about cattle…. let’s turn to fowl…. look up an ostrich.

            8. “I did not insist that Apple did so, I asked if it was so. I did state that it wouldn’t be out of character.”

              More endless conjecture and jibber jabber about Apple. Do you ever stop talking about Apple? Apple must have your number but good. You’re obsessed. I’ll leave you to it then. Continue jabbering and jibbering.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.