Monday, August 24, 2026
Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Suit Validly Pleads Apple’s Repair Practices Breach UCL
Justices Reinstate Putative Class Action Alleging Practices to Thwart Do-It-Yourself Mending of Products, or Going to Independent Shops to Have Them Fixed, Through Such Means as ‘Bobby Trapping’ Devices
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The First District Court of Appeal has reinstated a putative class action against Apple Inc. alleging that the Silicon Valley-based multi-national technology company deters consumers and independent repair shops from fixing its products through such means as “booby-trapping them” by cutting off essential features if they’re tinkered with.
Acting Presiding Justice Cynthia C. Lie authored Thursday’s unpublished opinion which reverses a judgment awarded to Apple by Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Charles Adams who found that a cause of action under the state Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) had not been validly pled.
That claim was put forth, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, by two named plaintiffs: Jesse Granato and Janice Zarad. Granato additionally pled a cause of action for himself and others under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”).
The opinion directs that the trial court, on remand, overrule the demurrer to the UCL claim but again sustain a demurrer without leave to amend to Granato’s claim, finding the pleading of that cause of action inadequate.
The plaintiffs contend that two of the three alternative bases for a UCL action are met, contending that the conduct is “unfair” and “unlawful.” They make no claim under the third prong: a practice that is “fraudulent.”
A footnote in Thursday’s opinion says: “Because plaintiffs have stated a claim under the unfair prong, we need not address whether they have stated a claim under the unlawful prong.” The plaintiffs maintain that Apply violates the UCL through “a multifaceted scheme to prevent its customers from repairing their own devices or paying local businesses for repairs.”
Both plaintiffs in 2021, in unrelated transactions, had Apple repair an iPhone with a cracked screen, acting pursuant to a representation by an employee of the defendant that the instruments could not be fixed other than by the original equipment manufacturer (“OLM”). The operative pleading alleges:
“Plaintiff Granato was told by the Apple employee who assisted him that the screen was not covered by the Warranty and that if he went elsewhere to repair his iPhone he would lose coverage under the Warranty. Plaintiff Granato believed he had no choice but to have Apple repair the screen on his iPhone and paid Apple $129.00 plus tax to do so….
“Based on her conversation with an Apple employee. Plaintiff Zarad understood that she had to have the iPhone repaired by Apple. Plaintiff Zarad went ahead and paid Apple $199 plus tax for a screen repair on the iPhone 11.”
The plaintiffs say that if they could have had the work done for less at an independent repair ship, that would have been their preference.
Independent Repairs Thwarted
“Apple…would rather its customers replace their devices as frequently as possible to generate more profits, and so has made independent repairs difficult or impossible,” the complaint contends, continuing:
“The methods Apple employs as part of its scheme include: manufacturing its devices with booby traps and other barriers that prevent self-repair or repairs from independent shops; withholding original replacement parts, custom tools, repair manuals, and diagnostic software from customers and independent repair shops; conditioning warranty coverage on obtaining repairs and parts from Apple or authorized repair shops that arc under its control; threatening customers with loss of warranty coverage if they obtain repairs or parts outside of Apple or its authorized repair shops; and disparaging non-OLM parts and independent repair shops.”
Updating that information, the plaintiffs/appellants said in their opening brief on appeal:
“Only after Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit did Apple begin allowing customers to make routine repairs like replacing the battery—though Apple makes it as difficult as possible. Much like its consumer-repair program, Apple’s so-called ‘Independent Repair Program’…burdens non-apple businesses that want to repair iPhones with unreasonable terms, including significantly higher prices for genuine Apple parts, which are then passed on to their customers. This often drives those customers back to Apple for device repairs or replacement parts.”
‘Unfair,’ “Unlawful’
Addressing unfairness, Lie wrote:
“Here, even if we combine the most stringent components of the tests—by requiring a substantial, not reasonably avoidable, consumer injury that is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition flowing from a practice that offends a public policy enshrined in statute or regulation—plaintiffs* allegations of unfair conduct suffice. As a result, we need not choose between the competing tests, which would permit plaintiffs to establish unfairness on a lesser showing.
“It would be contrary to public policies enshrined in the Right to Repair Act for Apple to prevent consumers and independent repair shops from having reasonable access to repair parts, tools, and documentation….Plaintiffs allege that Apple did exactly that, refusing to make those items available to independent repair shops. And beyond denying access, plaintiffs allege that Apple deliberately designed its devices with paired parts, unnecessary proprietary screws, and ‘booby traps’ to thwart independent repairs.
“We recognize that these practices were not expressly prohibited by statute when plaintiffs were allegedly injured. The practices were thus not made unlawful by the statute. But the later establishment of a statutory right persuades us that conduct that would infringe that later-codified right was unfair even at the time.”
Lie added that although Granato did not adequately allege “that Apple violated the letter of the MMWA,” the plaintiffs “have alleged conduct that violated the policy or spirit of the law.”
Apple said in its respondent’s brief:
“Plaintiffs…suggest that, even if they could obtain a third-party repair, those repairs would not involve genuine Apple parts, and their iPhone devices would not have functioned properly afterwards….But Apple’s publicly available iPhone user guide expressly put consumers on notice that third-party repairs ‘may not involve the use of Apple genuine parts and may affect the...functionality of the device.’…Consumers like Plaintiffs, who nonetheless chose the iPhone, had a free and informed choice to do so, and thus could have avoided any injury they ostensibly suffered.”
Rejecting that reasoning, Lie said:
“To begin, this undeveloped record does not support Apple’s premise that plaintiffs were aware of the alleged unfair practices when they purchased their iPhones. Nor will we presume on demurrer that a consumer would have reason to expect Apple’s alleged refusal to deal with independent repair shops, parts pairing, or deployment of ‘booby traps.’ ”
She continued:
“And we are skeptical of the breadth of Apple’s argument: To hold that a consumer’s threshold option to not purchase a new, functional product will immunize the product manufacturer’s alleged anticompetitive practices in the market for eventual repair services would reduce the intentionally broad scope of the unfair prong to the realm of pure theory. Advance notice of a warranty’s effective terms may foreclose a hypothetical claim that Apple’s practices were fraudulent. But we see no indication in the UCL that consumers’ threshold ability to opt out of consumption vitiates unfairness in the challenged practices they later encountered….To adopt Apple’s caveat emptor standard would defeat the purpose of the UCL.”
The case is Granato v. Apple, Inc., H052890.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company