Apple Urges 9th Circuit to Affirm Denial of TRO to Halt iPhone 15 Pro Ads

The district court “properly denied” appellant Ganiyu Jaiyeola’s emergency ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to halt Black Friday advertising of the iPhone 15 Pro on his allegations that the device is falsely advertised as a titanium phone when it’s mostly fashioned from aluminum (see 2401080002), said Apple’s answering brief Monday (docket 23-4027) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in Jaiyeola’s appeal.

The application failed to satisfy “the high threshold showing required” to obtain the injunctive relief sought, said Apple’s brief. The U.S. District Court for Northern California’s “well-reasoned order” should be affirmed, it said. Verizon, meanwhile, adopts the arguments raised in AT&T’s answering brief in opposition to Jaiyeola’s appeal (see 2402060027), said its joinder Tuesday.

As a “threshold matter,” Jaiyeola lacks standing to pursue claims for false advertising under either federal or California law, said Apple’s answering brief. He doesn’t have standing to pursue a Lanham Act claim against Apple because as a consumer, he doesn’t have a “commercial interest in reputation or sales,” as is required “to come within the zone of interests necessary to bring a Lanham Act claim,” it said.

Jaiyeola also can’t establish the “requisite economic injury” to bring a claim for violation of California’s False Advertising Law, said Apple’s brief. The 9th Circuit therefore lacks jurisdiction over his claims, including his request for a TRO, it said.

Jaiyeola hasn’t otherwise met the standard for “the extraordinary relief” he seeks, said Apple’s brief. The record shows that the district court “appropriately exercised its discretion” in finding that all four factors of the preliminary injunction test established by the U.S. Supreme Court “weigh in favor” of denying Jaiyeola’s request for a TRO, it said.

Jaiyeola hasn’t shown that he’s likely to prevail on the merits because he hasn’t introduced evidence “that the advertising is false or misleading or likely to deceive the public,” said Apple’s brief. He also hasn’t met his burden to show that the threatened harm is irreparable “because the consumer harm he purportedly seeks to prevent may be remedied by money damages,” it said. He also hasn’t shown that the equities or public interest weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief, it said.

Jaiyeola also fails to show that the district court’s timing in ruling on his ex parte application “was an abuse of discretion,” said Apple’s brief. He provides no legal support or analysis to show that the district court “had any obligation to rule on his ex parte application within any certain time frame,” it said. The ultimate denial was proper, so Jaiyeola didn’t suffer any prejudice arising from the district court’s timing in issuing its order, it said.