Lopez vs. Apple, Inc.

Case Background

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff Fumiko Lopez and others filed a Class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division (Case number: 4:19cv4577). This case was assigned to Judge Jeffrey S. White and referred to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

Cause

Apple Inc. faced allegations of unlawfully intercepting and recording private conversations through its Siri-enabled devices without the explicit consent of users. Plaintiffs, including Fumiko Lopez, her minor child, and other similarly affected individuals, claimed that Apple’s products, such as iPhones, Apple Watches, and HomePods, captured sensitive communications—even when users did not activate Siri by saying the trigger phrase “Hey Siri” or manually enabling it. These recordings reportedly occurred accidentally and included confidential discussions, such as medical consultations, private business dealings, and intimate personal moments.

Despite Apple’s public assurances about user privacy, the company allegedly transmitted these recordings to its servers. It also allowed third-party contractors to analyze the data. The plaintiffs argued that Apple used this information to improve Siri’s functionality. They claimed that Apple aimed to gain a competitive edge in the tech market. This occurred all while violating user trust and privacy. These alleged actions took place over an extended period. The period spanned from October 2011 to the present. Millions of devices sold across the United States were affected.

Injuries

The plaintiffs reported significant emotional and psychological injuries resulting from Apple’s unauthorized surveillance practices. They claimed that the interception of their private conversations caused distress and embarrassment. It also created a sense of betrayal regarding their trust in Apple’s privacy commitments. The plaintiffs emphasized that this breach of privacy was particularly egregious in cases involving children. Children could not legally consent to such recordings.

Apple reportedly failed to protect the sensitive communications of its users. This raised concerns about the potential misuse of personal data. The plaintiffs argued that these actions intruded upon their reasonable expectations of privacy. This was especially true in spaces like their homes. In those spaces, they believed they were entitled to greater protection. The emotional toll compounded the financial injuries tied to purchasing devices marketed under false pretenses about privacy safeguards.

Damages

The plaintiffs alleged significant financial and non-financial damages stemming from Apple’s privacy violations. They claimed that the value of their Siri-enabled devices was inherently diminished due to the deceptive practices surrounding Siri. The plaintiffs asserted that they would not have paid the premium prices for Apple’s products if they had been aware of the unauthorized recordings and misuse of their private information. They also sought compensation for the emotional distress and reputational harm caused by the potential misuse of their sensitive conversations. Furthermore, the plaintiffs pointed out that Apple financially benefited from these invasions, using the improperly obtained data to enhance Siri’s functionality and maintain a competitive edge over other virtual assistants. The lawsuit emphasized the need for Apple to provide restitution for the wrongful benefits it gained at the expense of user privacy.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Fumiko Lopez, as guardian of A.L., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated | John Troy Pappas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated | David Yacubian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated | Apple, Inc. a Delaware corporation
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Mark N. Todzo | Vincent Briganti | Alesandra Greco | Andrea Farah | Christian Levis | Eric Somers | Erin Green Comite | Hal Davis Cunningham | John T. Jasnoch | Joseph G. Cleemann | Joseph P. Guglielmo | Margaret C. MacLean | Patrick R. Carey | Radhika Gupta | Victoria L. Burke
  • Defendant(s): Apple, Inc., a Delaware corporation
    • Counsel for Defendants: Isabelle Louise Ord | Alexandria Armida Amezcua | Arturo J. Gonzalez | Eric Roberts | Katie Viggiani | Purvi Govindlal Patel | Raj N. Shah | Tia Nguyen

 Claims

The lawsuit included several legal claims aimed at holding Apple accountable for its alleged actions:

Wiretap Act Violations:

Apple was accused of intentionally intercepting and recording oral communications without the consent of users. These violations allegedly occurred when Siri activated without user commands, transmitting sensitive conversations to Apple’s servers.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA):

The plaintiffs claimed that Apple violated state laws by recording private conversations without consent, infringing on California’s strict privacy protections.

Breach of Contract:

Apple’s actions were alleged to have breached its user agreements and privacy policies, which assured customers that their personal data would not be collected or shared without explicit consent.

Unfair Competition:

The plaintiffs accused Apple of engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices under the California Unfair Competition Law. They argued that Apple’s misleading marketing about privacy protections led them to purchase Siri-enabled devices under false pretenses.

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief:

The plaintiffs sought a court order to prevent Apple from continuing its alleged unlawful practices and to compel the company to delete all unauthorized recordings.

Defense

In its reply brief supporting a motion to dismiss, Apple defended against claims regarding Siri’s voice recording practices. Apple argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing under Clapper v. Amnesty International because they failed to show they personally suffered any privacy invasion. The company contended that the plaintiffs’ allegations of “accidental” recordings contradicted claims of intentional misconduct. Apple emphasized its efforts to improve Siri and reduce false triggers, which undermined the plaintiffs’ claims of intentional wrongdoing.

Apple maintained that it did not intercept any communications, as Siri activated only through user actions. The company argued that users consented to recordings by enabling and continuing to use Siri. They had been informed that Siri might not be error-free and had seen visual indicators when Siri activated. Apple claimed that the plaintiffs failed to identify any actual confidential communications that were recorded. Instead, they made general claims about private conversations.

Regarding specific legal claims, Apple argued that Section 631(a) did not apply to oral communications, that it qualified for Safe Harbor provisions under the Stored Communications Act, and that Siri was not an “electronic communications service” under the law. The company also contended that its Privacy Policy authorized sharing recordings with service providers to improve functionality. Apple argued that the plaintiffs’ continued use of Siri undermined their privacy claims and that they had failed to identify any actual contractual provisions that were breached. Lastly, Apple argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing under California’s Unfair Competition Law because they did not adequately allege they lost money or property due to Apple’s conduct.

Settlement

On December 31, 2024, Apple paid $95,000,000 to create a non-reversionary common fund that covered all approved settlement claims, notice and settlement administration costs (including any taxes owed by the Settlement Fund), Court-approved Service Awards, and Court-approved Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. The Gross Settlement Amount reverted to Apple only if the Settlement Agreement was voided, canceled, or terminated.

Apple distributed the Net Settlement Amount on a pro-rata basis. This distribution was based on the number of Siri devices that experienced unintended Siri activations. If Settlement Class Members did not claim their payments within 120 days after issuance, Apple used the funds to cover additional settlement administration costs. Any remaining funds were then distributed to cy pres recipients. These recipients were agreed upon by the parties and approved by the Court.

The settlement also required Apple to take two actions. First, Apple had to permanently delete individual Siri audio recordings collected before October 2019. Second, Apple was required to publish a webpage. This page would explain the process by which users could opt into the “Improve Siri” option. It would also provide details about the information Apple stored from users who opted in.

Court Documents:

Documents Available for Purchase upon Request