A Californian court has awarded Apple a partial victory in a class action lawsuit alleging that the company violated the privacy of some iPhone owners.
The case followed a security researcher discovering data collection practices by Apple which he described at the time as “shocking” …
Privacy invasion claim
The lawsuit dates back to a discovery made more than three years ago.
When you set up a new iPhone, you’re asked whether or not you consent to Apple collecting analytics data. However, security researcher Tommy Mysk ran tests that appeared to indicate Apple collected exactly the same app data from your iPhone whether or not you consented.
The App Store app was sending real-time data on your app searches, the ads you’d seen, how you found the apps you viewed, and even how long you spent looking at an app’s page. Gizmodo points out that even this data can be sensitive – for example, searching for apps related to LGBTQIA+ issues, or abortion […]
[Mysk then found] the same was true of Apple Music, Apple TV, Books, and Stocks. For example, the Stocks app shared with Apple your watched stocks, as well as the names of other stocks you searched for or viewed – together with the news articles you read in the app.
Mysk said that, even with consent, “the level of detail is shocking for a company like Apple,” but it was even more concerning that it happened with or without agreement.
A class action lawsuit was filed in California, accusing Apple of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Case partially dismissed
Apple denied that its data collection practices violated the law and asked a court to dismiss that element of the lawsuit. Bloomberg Law reports that the judge in the case has now granted this motion.
Judge Edward J. Davila on Tuesday granted Apple’s motion to dismiss parts of a privacy class action that alleged violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Constitution, the state’s unfair competition law, breach of implied contract, and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.
Looking at the judgment, it appears the claim failed because it was not clear that the analytics data qualified as “confidential” information, nor that collecting it constitutes “communication” within the terms of the acts cited.
The judge has allowed the plaintiffs in this case one last chance to try to rephrase their complaint, but has said it’s unlikely this could succeed.
“It is doubtful whether Plaintiffs can sufficiently plead their dismissed claims given the deficiencies addressed in this Order,” he said.
The plaintiffs have also alleged violations of similar laws in Illinois, New Jersey, and New York.
9to5Mac’s Take
This ruling appears to hinge not on the principle involved, but rather on the technical issue of the meaning of particular terms within the laws, specifically “confidential” and “communication.”
While it’s disappointing that we seem unlikely to get a ruling on the more substantive issue of whether or not Apple’s data collection practices are acceptable, it’s extremely likely that Apple has strong protections to ensure that this data is only analyzed on an aggregated basis and is separated from the identity of individual iPhone users.
Photo by Conny Schneider on Unsplash
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
By
