In Taleshpour v. Apple, Inc., D.C. No. 5:20-cv-03122 (9th Cir. May 19, 2022), the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed that product manufacturers have no duty to disclose defects that do not pose a safety risk. Plaintiffs brought suit against Apple, alleging that Apple violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLA”) when it failed to disclose defects in certain MacBook Pro laptops that may manifest after the computers’ warranty expired. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims on the basis that they did not allege a safety risk.
Plaintiffs appealed and urged the Ninth Circuit to “tweak” existing precedent that read the CLRA as only requiring disclosure of defects that either cause physical injury or raise a “safety concern.” Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court declined to revisit Wilson and affirmed the requirement that Plaintiffs allege a physical injury or a safety concern.
Taleshpour’s holding is beneficial to class action defendants defending against a CLRA claim, as it further confirms that manufacturers do not have to disclose every potential issue that may occur in a product. However, savvy plaintiffs are likely to continue to allege that their chosen defect presents a safety concern whenever possible, in order to survive a motion to dismiss.
Taleshpour v. Apple, Inc. was decided by Judges O’Scannlain, Bumatay, and Baker (sitting by designation from the U.S. Court of International Trade).