U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson for Northern California in San Francisco rescheduled to March 12 at 2 p.m. PDT from Jan. 25 an in-person hearing on Apple’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg's first amended class action alleging iCloud+ fraud (see 2311270043), said a clerk’s text-only notice Monday (docket 3:23-cv-04409). Thompson’s existing briefing schedule is “maintained,” and a joint case management statement remains due by Jan. 18, said the notice. Bodenburg alleges that Apple delivers iCloud+ subscribers 5 GB less monthly cloud-storage capacity than they buy. But Apple’s motion to dismiss asserts that her contention should be rejected because the only reasonable interpretation of the information about iCloud+ on Apple’s website is that the storage amount listed is what is provided for a given subscription plan.

CenturyLink reneged on its promises to lock in monthly internet prices for residential Price For Life program subscribers who remained in good standing, maintained service at the same residential address without interruption and didn’t change their CenturyLink service plans, alleged a fraud class action Friday (docket 3:23-cv-01739) in U.S. District Court for Oregon in Portland. CenturyLink promised the benefit in ads and promotions that began in 2017 and “also in the terms and conditions” that its residential internet customers contractually agreed to, it said. Price For Life subscribers gained price stability and peace of mind, prompting many of them to dismiss CenturyLink’s competitors’ offers, even “when those competitors offered better prices, faster speeds, more reliable connections, or other benefits,” it said. But CenturyLink in 2023 “quietly raised prices for Price For Life customers who had followed CenturyLink’s instructions and complied with the Price For Life terms,” it said. Many CenturyLink customers received no warning of any price hikes until they saw their monthly bills increase by $10 or more, it said. CenturyLink’s decision to break its Price For Life agreements “came on the heels of massive losses in the value of its business,” said the complaint. CenturyLink’s stock price plummeted in 2022, losing more than 55% of its value in just one year, it said. The company's stock in February lost more than 35% of its value, the complaint said. “Facing a financial crisis and desperate for increased cash flow, CenturyLink decided to extract more money from its customers in violation of its contracts,” it said. Oregon's Christopher Rosing, Jarrett Civelli and Jeffrey Haagenson bring their lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class and an Oregon subclass composed of CenturyLink customers who subscribed to the Price For Life program and complied with the terms, yet “have still seen their bills increase,” said the class action. CenturyLink’s decision to breach its terms and conditions with customers "who loyally complied with them" is a breach of contract. Its advertising, marketing and treatment of the members of the Oregon subclass constitute violations of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and its receipt and retention of the funds above and beyond what it should have charged Price For Life subscribers is unjust enrichment, it said. Plaintiff Haagenson canceled his service after CenturyLink refused to honor its Price For Life commitment. He instead subscribed to Verizon residential internet service with a slower connection speed.

Plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg’s Nov. 9 amended class action against Apple (see 2311220011) “is based on an implausible and strained misinterpretation of Apple’s unambiguous and accurate public disclosures about its iCloud+ cloud storage service that customers can choose to purchase,” said Apple’s motion to dismiss Friday (docket 3:23-cv-04409) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Bodenburg alleges that Apple delivers iCloud+ subscribers 5 GB less monthly cloud-storage capacity than they buy. But her contention “should be rejected because the only reasonable interpretation of the information about iCloud+ on Apple’s website is that the storage amount listed is what is provided for a given subscription plan,” said Apple. Bodenburg’s amended complaint “fails to negate” the simple fact that Apple’s public statements about iCloud+ wouldn’t lead reasonable consumers “to be misled or confused,” it said. Her legal position “should be rejected because it defies both common sense and the plain language of Apple’s public (and judicially noticeable) disclosures,” it said.

On its face, it’s clear that the plaintiffs’ arguments of injury in the two consolidated fraud class actions against AudienceView Ticketing and UniversityTickets.com stemming from a massive data breach in February “are wholly unsupported by the facts” surrounding the breach, said the defendants’ memorandum of law Nov. 17 (docket 1:23-cv-03764) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of their motion to dismiss (see 2310270026). The complaint must be dismissed for lack of standing, said the memorandum. Despite the limited nature of the personally identifiable information (PII) that was exposed in the breach, the plaintiffs implausibly claim they are at an imminent risk of identity theft, it said. While the plaintiffs “purport to allege actual misuse of their PII” as a result of the breach, the allegations in the complaint “make clear that such an allegation is entirely implausible and, indeed, impossible,” it said: “These allegations are woefully insufficient to confer standing.”

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee for Central California in Los Angeles ordered defendant WCO Spectrum to file a motion or stipulation by Feb. 16 seeking the substitution of founder and controlling interest Gary Winnick's successor-in-interest or representative, said her text-only order Nov. 17 (docket 2:23-cv-04347). WCO’s suggestion of death Thursday notified the court that Winnick died Nov. 4, and the filing started the six-month clock running for plaintiff T-Mobile to substitute another defendant for Winnick (see 2311170013). T-Mobile is suing WCO for educational broadband service (EBS) wireless spectrum fraud (see 2306030002), and WCO alleges the lawsuit is T-Mobile’s “Hail Mary pass” to stave off competition in the EBS space (see 2309190046).

U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson for Northern California in San Francisco denied as moot Apple’s Oct. 20 motion to dismiss plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg’s iCloud+ fraud class action, said her order, signed Monday and posted Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-04409). Instead of opposing Apple’s motion, Bodenburg filed an amended complaint Nov. 9, and the consolidated amended complaint “replaces the original complaint as the operative complaint in this action,” said the judge’s order. The denial is without prejudice, and it doesn’t preclude Apple “from refiling a renewed motion to dismiss” that addresses Bodenburg’s amended complaint, it said. Bodenburg alleges that Apple delivers iCloud+ subscribers 5 GB less monthly cloud-storage capacity than they pay for (see 2308270001). Due to multiple recusals, Thompson is the fifth judge assigned to the case since Bodenburg filed her original complaint Aug. 25 (see 2310310040).

The complaint in which plaintiff Nathan Brinton alleges that One Technologies caused the delivery of at least 175 spam emails to his inbox since August, in violation of Washington consumer protection laws, should be dismissed, said the credit information company’s motion Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-06046) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Tacoma. Its grounds for dismissal are for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), or alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), said the motion. One Technologies telegraphed its intention of seeking dismissal of Brinton’s complaint in its Nov, 15 notice of its removal of the action from Clark County Superior Court (see 2311160002). One Technologies isn’t subject to general personal jurisdiction in Washington because it’s headquartered in Texas, has no physical offices in Washington and isn’t otherwise “at home” in Washington, said its memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion to dismiss. It’s not subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Washington either, said the memorandum. Brinton’s claims “arise solely from his alleged receipt of unsolicited marketing emails that he claims violate anti-spam statutes” in Washington, California and Florida, it said. But Brinton doesn't allege that One Technologies sent him the emails. He rather alleges that third-party independent contractors, known as “publishers,” sent them, and that the publishers “exercised exclusive control over to whom and where emails were sent,” it said: One Technologies didn't know about the emails at issue until after Brinton "complained to One Technologies about them.” Alternatively, the court should dismiss counts 2 and 3 of the complaint because Brinton “failed to state a claim for relief under California and Florida law,” it said. To recover under California or Florida statutes, a plaintiff needs to allege that he received unsolicited commercial emails in California and Florida, or that the emails themselves were sent from California and Florida, but Brinton alleges neither, it said.

Plaintiffs Resideo and Ademco fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, said defendant SkyBell Technologies, responding Monday (docket 1:23-cv-04295) to a May 23 fraud complaint in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Plaintiffs also fail to allege any facts relating to their purported damages, it said. To the extent that plaintiffs have been damaged, and “they have not,” they failed to mitigate their damages, said the response. The complaint alleges SkyBell terminated a video doorbell contract with Resideo, after the company breached their agreement by selling an unlicensed First Alert VX1 video doorbell that infringes SkyBell patents (see 2305310023). If SkyBell’s termination is allowed to take effect, early termination would mean Resideo “will be prematurely deprived of SkyBell’s services,” which are necessary for uninterrupted operation of Resideo’s installed base of SkyBell video doorbells.

Plaintiff Cresa, a real estate advisory firm, agreed to magistrate judge jurisdiction, said its consent filing (docket 3:23-cv-04642) Thursday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Cresa alleges Twitter failed to pay $371,621 for services owed from August 2022 through March following Elon Musk's buy last year of Twitter, now known as X (see 2309120066).

Discovery in the FTC’s fraud complaint vs. Amazon over Prime enrollment policies is likely to involve production of confidential and proprietary information "for which special protection may be warranted,” said U.S. District Judge John Chun for Western Washington Thursday in a signed protective order (docket 2:23-CV-00932), responding to a stipulated protective order by the parties. Chun’s order in the Seattle court doesn’t give “blanket protection” on all disclosures or responses to discovery, nor the protection it affords from public disclosure; use extends only to limited information or items entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles, it said. The order does not presumptively entitle parties to file confidential information under seal, he added. The availability of protection from the order doesn’t preclude a party from withholding information protected by any applicable privilege, and nothing in the order restricts a producing party's right to disclose or make use of its own documents or discovery or investigational material, the judge said.