Apple has filed a response to a group of class-action suits claiming the company falsely advertised the abilities of the Siri voice-activated digital assistant in its iPhone 4S, countering that the plaintiffs' claims are vague, incomplete, and "highly individualized."
The iPhone maker, which filed its motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaints with a federal court in Oakland, Calif. on May 10, also questions why none of the claimants availed themselves of Apple's 30-day return policy despite saying they "became dissatisfied with Siri's performance 'soon after' purchasing their iPhones."
Apple further argues that some of the plaintiffs, including the New York man who filed the first of the consolidated suits, purchased iPhones outside of California and thus lack standing to pursue claims under California's consumer protection statutes.
The Siri class-action suit was kicked off when New York resident Frank Fazio filed suit against Apple in a San Jose, Calif. federal court on March 6 with a claim that Apple's iPhone 4S ads were "fundamentally and designedly false and misleading," thus "rendering the iPhone 4S merely a more expensive iPhone 4." Fazio claims that although Apple's marketing efforts for the iPhone 4S use the addition of Siri as the primary differentiator from earlier iPhone models, the new technology doesn't come close to performing functions as well or as consistently as Apple advertises it doing.
Fazio and other plaintiffs cite various tasks Siri is shown performing in Apple ads, such as finding a restaurant or helping a user learn guitar chords, alleging that in reality the technology is not capable of carrying out those tasks consistently or well.
Apple advocates have attempted to counter some of these claims by noting that Apple has consistently alerted consumers that Siri is still in a testing phase, or "in beta."
Apple's motion to dismiss also notes that Siri was identified as beta technology at the press event where the iPhone 4S was launched on Oct. 4, 2011, that Siri's beta status is listed "prominently" on Apple's website, and that Apple "expressly noted that users 'can't ask [Siri] everything, and it's not perfect'" at the iPhone 4S launch event.
But Apple's main counter-argument appears to be its contention that the plaintiffs' complaints lack the specificity that would be required to back up their claims of false advertising—failing to provide "a single actionable misstatement" on the part of Apple that would show the company "engaged in a unified course of fraudulent conduct to disseminate false and misleading statements in its advertising and marketing of iPhone 4S's Siri software."
The Apple motion goes on to say:
"Plaintiffs do not tell the Court how Siri's operation allegedly differs from any particular representation they relied on in purchasing their iPhones. They offer only general descriptions of Apple's advertisements, incomplete summaries of Apple's website materials, and vague descriptions of their alleged—and highly individualized—disappointment with Siri.
"Tellingly, although Plaintiffs claim they became dissatisfied with Siri's performance 'soon after' purchasing their iPhones, they made no attempt to avail themselves of Apple's 30-day return policy or one-year warranty—which remains in effect. Instead, they seek to take an alleged personal grievance about the purported performance of a popular product and turn it into a nationwide class action under California's consumer protection statutes. The Complaint does not come close to meeting the heavy burden necessary to sustain such claims."
For more, see What You Need To Know About Siri on iPhone 4S, Siri, Are You Anti-Abortion?, and Siri Is Dumb. There, We Said It.
For more from Damon, follow him on Twitter @dpoeter.
