Apple: Our Ads Don't Lie, But You're a Fool if You Believe Them

[mangxema]

From Wired:

Apple doesn't want you to believe what it says, even though the company claims it's not lying.

That's the gist of the Cupertino company's legal response to a lawsuit regarding allegedly misleading advertising for the iPhone 3G.

The corporation's nine-page legal document [.pdf] is an answer to a complaint filed by William Gillis, a 70-year-old San Diego resident who alleges that Apple falsely advertised the iPhone 3G by calling it "twice as fast for half the price" compared with the original handset.

Some parts of Apple's 32-point rebuttal say that the company was being truthful. But one paragraph says, in effect, that anyone who believes what the company says in its ads is a fool.

"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple said in its answer.

...

Do they have any legal legs to stand on, so to speak? Could someone clarify what they mean by this apparent contradiction?

 

[LesCanadiens]

Apple lies in nearly every ad they put out, especially those "Mac vs PC" ads. Anyone with a brain knows this. Doesn't excuse their lies, of course, but still...

 

[Bill3000]

...what was the ad at hand?

 

[joycem10]

It is standard in an Answer is to assert all defenses available to the defendant. In most jurisdictions failure to assert a defense in an Answer may lead to a waiver of that defense. The fact that a "reasonable 'person'" would not believe these ads may or may not be a key piece of the defense of the class litigation.

But dont let that rain on the overraction bandwagon.

 

[Bill3000]

It is standard in an Answer is to assert all defenses available to the defendant. .

...even if they're contradictory?

 

[JollyRoger]

...even if they're contradictory?

It's like a second line of defense. First, we were not puffing, but even if you somehow prove that we were, it was unreasonable for you to have relied on such pufferery.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

It's just "arguing in the alternative," an acceptable legal strategy in the United States. They throw out every defense, e.g., "we didn't do it, but even if we did do it, he doesn't have any damages."

Here, a false advertising claim probably involves a bunch of "elements" -- facts that must be proven to support a claim. Apple disputes all of them. One of them is that Apple's statement was false. They say, "No, our statement wasn't false!" Another is that the plaintiff reasonably relied on Apple's statement. They say, "No, no reasonable person would have relied on it!"

Remember: the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff to show that all the elements have been met. Defeating any single element results in a defense victory. Stuff like this is in nearly every reply filed in the United States. It's just how our legal system works.

Cleo

 

[joycem10]

Cleo explained it in a manner that is much more understandible to a lay person.

 

[JollyRoger]

The complaint sues on negligence by Apple, negligence by AT&T, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, unlawful business practice, and false and misleading advetising. Obviously some of those claims are mutually exclusive and dependent on how the facts are decided. The plaintiffs are covering all their bases and Apple is entitled to the same.

 

[mangxema]

Ok, cool. Thanks JR and Cleo... that makes a lot of sense now.

 

[Serutan]

Given that Apple has emphasized style over substance since the Apple 2 ceased production, it has been foolish for over 20 years to believe their claims...