## Facts

- Plaintiffs brought a putative nationwide class action on behalf of purchasers of Apple’s 2007 20-inch Aluminum iMac, alleging deceptive marketing about the computer’s display.
- Apple marketed the 20-inch model as capable of displaying “millions of colors.”
- The 20-inch model used a six-bit display panel natively capable of 262,144 colors, while the 24-inch model (and prior 20-inch iMacs) used eight-bit panels capable of 16,777,216 colors.
- The six-bit panel used dithering/temporal simulation so viewers could perceive “millions” of colors despite lower native color depth.
- Plaintiffs alleged they relied on Apple’s marketing and later experienced inferior viewing angles and color depth, asserting the display could not show “millions of colors” at all resolutions and instead produced only 262,144 “true” colors.
- Plaintiffs asserted warranty and California consumer-protection theories and sought damages and class-wide relief.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs alleged Article III standing and a concrete economic injury sufficient for subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated claims for misrepresentation and breach of express warranty based on Apple’s “millions of colors” representation and related omissions.
3. Whether the nationwide class allegations were adequately pleaded or should be stricken at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), with leave to amend.
- The court granted Apple’s motion to strike the class allegations, with leave to amend.
- The court found plaintiffs’ alleged injury inadequately pleaded because the complaint did not nonconclusively connect the asserted technical limitations to an actual economic loss (e.g., overpayment, price premium, or a “would not have purchased/would have paid less” theory).
- The court held plaintiffs did not plausibly plead that “millions of colors” was objectively false or misleading as used, given the display’s use of simulation that could yield perceived “millions” of colors.
- The court required greater specificity as to what was said or omitted, where and when plaintiffs encountered it, and why it would mislead reasonable consumers.
- The court concluded the class allegations, as pleaded, were not adequately supported given potential variation in exposure, reliance, and the theory of class-wide injury.

## Legal Principles

- A consumer-fraud plaintiff must plead a concrete, non-speculative economic injury; dissatisfaction or alleged technical inferiority, without a plausible overpayment or lost-value theory, is insufficient.
- To plead deception, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that challenged statements are false or misleading in context; technically complex distinctions (e.g., native versus simulated performance) may not establish falsity without allegations about consumer understanding or industry meaning.
- Express-warranty claims require allegations that the defendant made an affirmation of fact or promise that became part of the basis of the bargain; generalized marketing language may be insufficient absent a specific, actionable promise.
- Misrepresentation/omission theories must be pleaded with particularity, including the content of the statement or omission, plaintiffs’ exposure to it, and why it would mislead a reasonable consumer.
- Class allegations may be stricken at the pleading stage where the complaint does not plausibly allege common proof of injury and reliance for the proposed class.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed and struck the putative class complaint with leave to amend because plaintiffs did not plausibly plead an actionable misrepresentation or express warranty and did not allege a concrete economic injury tied to Apple’s “millions of colors” representation, leaving class-wide claims unsupported on the pleadings.


Sanders v. Apple Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009)