In Bodenburg v. Apple, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit provided companies facing false advertising class actions with a significant tool to defeat those claims – the reaffirmation of the “reasonable consumer” standard.

Plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg sued Apple for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL, § 17200), California’s False Advertising Law (FAL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), claiming the company failed to provide additional storage with her iCloud+ plan. She alleged that Apple’s marketing materials suggested that purchasing a 200 GB iCloud+ tier would provide 200 GB in addition to the 5 GB of storage Apple provides to all customers — for a total of 205 GB. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Apple’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and held that Bodenburg’s claims did not pass the reasonable consumer test. Notably, the court reiterated that a plaintiff must “plausibly prove” that “that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled” by the statements in question to avoid dismissal under Rule 12. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that while Apple’s statements might have been “unreasonably misunderstood by an insignificant and unrepresentative segment” of consumers, that alone did not satisfy the reasonable consumer test.

Key Takeaways

1. The reasonable consumer test remains a potent early-stage defense for companies facing UCL, FAL and CLRA claims.
2. Rule 12(b)(6) motions force plaintiffs to refine their case and “plausibly prove” that a “significant portion” of reasonable consumers could be misled.
3. Ambiguity or isolated misunderstandings by a small subset of consumers are insufficient.

Businesses faced with putative consumer class actions should work with experienced counsel to pursue early resolution of the claims.