US District Judge Edward Davila found no evidence that Apple breached a warranty or violated California's consumer protection laws.
Here, the representations taken as a whole would not lead the "reasonable consumer" to believe that the glass housing on the iPhone 4 was indestructible or drop-proof because of one important distinction not at issue in Morgan: it is a well-known fact of life that glass can break under impact, even glass that has been reinforced. This much is known to the ordinary, reasonable consumer. The shattered window of a storefront, the cracked windshield of a car, and the chipped smartphone screen are routine encounters of modern existence. It seems a suspension of logic to say that the marketing campaign described in the FAC, which notably has nothing to do with phone-dropping, somehow erases these images from the collective experience such that the reasonable consumer could expect that glass could not break if dropped.
Read More [via Ian]