- Law firms
- The user of the “8 Ball Pool” application alleged that his data had been incorrectly consulted
- Federal and California applications rejected
The company and law firm names listed above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this functionality as we continue to test and develop in beta. We appreciate comments, which you can provide using the comments tab on the right of the page.
(Reuters) – A California federal judge has granted Miniclip SA and Apple Inc offers to dismiss a proposed privacy class action lawsuit that alleges that the Swiss digital game developer’s 8 Ball Pool app has Accessed data copied to Apple’s “Pasteboard” on app users’ smartphones without consent.
U.S. Senior District Judge William Shubb dismissed the four-count suit, which included complaints under California’s invasion of privacy and unfair competition laws and a law federal information on stored communications, in a order filed Thursday.
Bursor & Fisher attorneys representing plaintiff named Derek Mastel did not immediately return a request for comment. Neither did the lawyers at the Conrad | Metlitzky | Kane trial store who represented Miniclip.
Matt Powers, the San Francisco-based chairman of O’Melveny & Myers’ consumer class action practice, represented Apple. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mastel alleged in his proposed class action lawsuit that Miniclip’s pool app, which he downloaded to his iPhone, accessed the Pasteboard, a clipboard function described by the complaint as similar to the “copy and paste” function. from a computer, each time he opened the application. Without user permission and “with the help of Apple,” Miniclip can display text entries on a device’s Pasteboard, he alleged, claiming that the companies wiretapped electronic communications users. Apple is giving developers “unlimited access” to the feature, according to the complaint.
Miniclip and Apple filed separate motions to dismiss the case earlier this year. In this week’s order, the judge dismissed each claim, citing other confidentiality decisions and largely finding that Mastel had not made a claim.
He found that Mastel failed to adequately allege two clauses of California’s invasion of privacy law – which relates to wiretapping – against Miniclip. Since he has not established a violation, the lawsuit cannot proceed against Apple either, the judge said.
Regarding the alleged invasion of privacy under the state constitution, the judge found that Mastel’s allegations “simply do not approach the kind of” blatant “or” very “conduct. offensive “that the courts have generally allowed to go beyond the motion to dismiss stage.”
Mastel also did not allege economic damage, condemning the unfair competition action, the judge said.
The case is Mastel v. Miniclip SA et al, US District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 2: 21-cv-00124-WBS-KJN.
For Mastel: L. Timothy Fisher and Joel Smith of Bursor & Fisher
For Miniclip: Liz Kim and Warren Metlitzky by Conrad | Metlitzky | Kane
For Apple: Matt Powers of O’Melveny & Myers