- Law firms
- ‘8 Ball Pool’ app user alleged his data was improperly accessed
- Federal and California claims dismissed
The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.
(Reuters) – A California federal judge granted Miniclip SA and Apple Inc’s bids to dismiss a proposed privacy class action that alleges the Swiss digital game developer’s 8 Ball Pool application accessed data copied to Apple’s “Pasteboard” on app users’ smart phones without consent.
Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb dismissed the four-count complaint, which included claims under California’s invasion of privacy and unfair competition laws and a federal stored communications law, in an order filed Thursday.
Lawyers at Bursor & Fisher who represented named plaintiff Derek Mastel did not immediately return a request for comment. Nor did lawyers of trial boutique Conrad|Metlitzky|Kane who represented Miniclip.
Matt Powers, the San Francisco-based chair of O’Melveny & Myers’ consumer class actions practice, represented Apple. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mastel alleged in his proposed class action that Miniclip’s pool app, which he downloaded to his iPhone, accessed the Pasteboard, a clipboard feature the complaint described as similar to a computer’s “copy-paste” feature, whenever he opened the app. Without the permission of users and “with the aid of Apple,” Miniclip can view text entries on a device’s Pasteboard, he alleged, claiming the companies wiretap users’ electronic communications. Apple gives developers “unrestricted access” to the feature, the complaint said.
Miniclip and Apple filed separate motions to dismiss the case earlier this year. In the order this week, the judge dismissed each claim, citing other privacy rulings and largely finding Mastel failed to state a claim.
He concluded that Mastel didn’t adequately allege two clauses under…