(Westlaw) Apple Inc. has persuaded a California federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action accusing the tech giant of illegally collecting user data from its mobile apps even after users disable data-sharing options.
In re Apple Data Privacy Litigation, No. 22-cv-7069, 2026 WL 146025 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026).
U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California on Jan. 20 dismissed the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, ruling that they failed to state viable claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 632 and 638.51, or the state’s constitution.
Judge Davila granted the plaintiffs one more opportunity to amend their complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in his order.
Analytics tracking allegations
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, centered on allegations that Apple continued to track and record user activity within its proprietary apps — including the App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV, Books and Stocks — even after users had disabled the “Share iPhone Analytics” setting on their devices.
The plaintiffs relied heavily on a report by software company Mysk, which said Apple’s analytics data included detailed information such as device identifiers, search terms and keyboard languages.
They asserted causes of action for eavesdropping and the use of illegal pen registers under CIPA, invasion of privacy under California’s constitution, and violation of the state’s unfair-competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
Apple moved to dismiss, saying the plaintiffs failed to state a claim because the company had sufficiently disclosed its data collection practices in its privacy policy and software license agreements. Apple also contended that users could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding data that was necessary for the apps to function.
The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the data collected — such as specific search terms and referral URLs — revealed intimate details about their lives and constituted “confidential communications” protected by state law.
Pen register, eavesdropping theories rejected
Judge Davila rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Apple’s apps functioned as illegal “pen registers” in violation of CIPA.
He agreed with Apple that the apps themselves could not be pen registers because they were the source of the communications, not a separate recording device.
Apple’s first-party apps and their underlying processes are a part of the source of the transmitted communications, which is enough to disqualify them from being pen registers.
Judge Davila wrote. The judge also dismissed the eavesdropping claims under CIPA, saying internet communications are recorded “by their very nature” and thus not confidential.
He further determined that data points like device resolution and how long an app was viewed do not qualify as communications involving the exchange of ideas. While the judge noted that one plaintiff’s search terms — such as “roommate” and “used cars” — could constitute communications, the claim still failed because the data was not confidential.
Judge Davila dismissed the claims under California’s constitution because the plaintiffs did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data Apple collected to process their transactions.
Finally, the judge dismissed the unfair-competition law claims for lack of standing.
Attorneys from Bursor & Fisher PA and Lynch Carpenter LLP represent the plaintiffs. Attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP represent Apple.