## Facts

- Parents and guardians alleged they downloaded or allowed their minor children to download games from Apple’s App Store that were advertised as “free.”
- Certain games offered “game currency” (virtual items used in gameplay) for purchase with real money through in-app transactions.
- Plaintiffs alleged Apple’s system allowed in-app purchases for about fifteen minutes after a user entered an Apple ID password to download an app, without requiring the password to be re-entered.
- Plaintiffs alleged minor children made in-app purchases during this window without parental knowledge or authorization, resulting in charges to parents’ accounts.
- Plaintiffs alleged monetary losses ranging from about $99.99 to more than $300 per family.
- Plaintiffs asserted statutory consumer-protection claims (CLRA and UCL), contract-related claims, restitutionary claims (unjust enrichment/restitution and money had and received), and declaratory relief.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that Apple marketed apps as “free” while omitting the fifteen-minute in-app purchase window and related charging risk stated claims under the CLRA and UCL.
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly stated contract-based claims, including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
3. Whether restitutionary claims (unjust enrichment/restitution and money had and received) and declaratory relief could proceed at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- The court denied dismissal of the CLRA and UCL claims, finding the alleged marketing and omissions sufficiently pleaded and the alleged charges sufficient for economic injury and standing.
- The court allowed restitutionary theories (unjust enrichment/restitution and money had and received) to proceed based on allegations that Apple retained money from transactions allegedly voidable due to minors’ purchases.
- The court denied dismissal of the declaratory-relief claim, finding an actual controversy given surviving substantive claims.
- The court dismissed the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim with leave to amend for failure to tie the theory to a specific express contract term.

## Legal Principles

- Consumer-protection claims under the CLRA and UCL may be adequately pleaded where a defendant allegedly markets a product as “free” while omitting material information about features that can generate real-money charges.
- A plaintiff pleads UCL standing by alleging actual economic injury from challenged conduct.
- Restitutionary claims may proceed where plaintiffs allege the defendant retained money obtained through transactions asserted to be voidable and unauthorized.
- Under California law, an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim must be connected to an express contractual provision; generalized allegations of unfair design choices are insufficient.
- Declaratory relief is available at the pleading stage where surviving claims show a live dispute over the parties’ rights and obligations.

## Conclusion

The court permitted parents’ statutory consumer-protection and restitution-based claims arising from children’s in-app purchases during an alleged undisclosed fifteen-minute password window to proceed, while dismissing the implied-covenant claim with leave to amend for failure to identify an express contract term allegedly breached.


In re Apple In-App Purchase Litig., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (N.D. Cal. 2012)