Class Action suit demands that California ban sales of the iPhone

Class Action suit demands that California ban sales of the iPhone
A Class Action suit filed Tuesday at the Los Angeles County Superior Court by MLG Automotive Law, claims that Apple has had the technology since 2008 to prevent iPhone users from texting while behind the wheel of a car. While noting that Apple did receive a patent in 2014 for a similar invention, the suit alleges that Apple won't implement the technology because it would then be at a disadvantage to other phone manufacturers who don't limit consumer use of their handsets.

Data from the DOT is used in the court filing, claiming that 1.5 million people are texting and driving on the nation's public roads at any given moment. The suit also quotes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as saying that driving and texting is six times more dangerous as drunk driving. And things get worse from there. The California Highway Patrol and the Federal Highway Administration say that the iPhone is responsible for 52,000 car accidents and 312 deaths a year in the state..

The plaintiff in the new suit is said to be Costa Mesa's Julio Ceja, whose car was rear ended by another driver distracted by her iPhone. The suit seeks to stop all sales of the iPhone in California until Apple introduces a method that will prevent users of the handset from texting while driving. A similar suit was just filed by the parents of a 5-year old girl who was killed when a driver was using FaceTime while behind the wheel. The distraction caused the driver to ram into the car ahead of him at 65 miles per hour, killing the child. This suit also refers to the 2008 patent which would have allowed Apple to implement a tool for blocking drivers from using FaceTime.

Unlike the suit that demands a ban on iPhone sales in California (Ceja v. Apple), the legal action that resulted from the death of the five-year old girl is seeking monetary damages. 

   2017 01 17 Ceja v Apple Class Action Complaint by MalcolmOwen on Scribd

source: Scribd via AppleInsider



1. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1183; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Well, I certainly know what ever technology they said Apple "stole" certainly is useless. I see iPhone/android/every smartphones users text during drive all the time.

28. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

let darwin sort em out

43. lyndon420

Posts: 6790; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

Looks to be the case here. It's not the iPhone's's the users. Maybe iPhone users should pay higher insurance premiums ?!?

51. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

exactly. yes they should. iphone user on average is dumber and more likely to do retarded things like the article mentions.

58. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

You can't even write a f**king sentence but you've got the balls to call other people stupid? You poor fuctard.

61. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

yes i can write write a sentence. see? there were 2 more just right there. did ur phfag lover tim cook stick 3 iphones up ur azs instead of 2 last night or something???

42. AlikMalix unregistered

I'm an iPhone fan, but I would love to see iPhones being banned in some state or country just for lolz. it would extremely interesting if it was banned in California of all places. The irony would be gigantic.

62. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

naaaa. i live in cali, and hate iphones since they're only popular because of imessage n face time, but im going to get 1 so i can take advantage of the tool it will be in getting dumb isheep girls to bang. like i honestly think ill have more, if i get a iphone 4s or 5, so they can see, "if im typing" lmao. so yes i know y i use android, but ive been shooting myself in the 'dating/ banging game' foot by ignoring this tool. otherwise id say ban it, because it along with facebook, instagram and snapchat, has Made America Stupid Again, and now we have Trump as proof.

64. AlikMalix unregistered

Dumbest post of the year. I mean, there's nothing that you can do to get girls - you're a lost hope.

65. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

how dumb? and y? imessage is like an instant messenger. remember how popular AIM, Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, messenger were back in the day? weellllll these days, aside from facebook, snapchat, and some what instagram, these popular apps chat software is Just as popular, if not more, because of their apps original purpose. some ppl (chicks) dont text back or anwser the phone,buuut will message u on snapchat after a story post almost instantly sometimes. soooo, Imessage is a chat app, tied to the original software of the iphone itself, which is y ppl use it almost EXCLUSIVELY on iphone in the 1st place. hence, if IM not imessaging these girls, im not talking to their air-headed, but beautiful asses because i "dont have an iphoooone." In the software u can do REAL group chats like an IM app, and sms dosent even get close to this. i see girls call their friend group "the sluts" or name people by various nicknames, just like good ol' AOL instant message, so no WONDER its so popular. then i read on wiki, that apple uses (probably stole) the software of AIM in imessage!! sooo yes!! i need to start using this tool, in addition to my many others, to make it easier to bang these chicks. its not like i can marry all of them, u know?

66. AlikMalix unregistered

Wow, even more idiotic response... sorry bro... if you need software to "get girls" you need change your game...

67. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

Not to "get girls", sry. To have 1 more avenue available of many i can use to bang hoes that only use imessage as quickly and as cheaply as possible. better?

2. Subie

Posts: 2364; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

I feel bad for the family that lost their little girl, but I don't believe it was Apple's fault. The people who text and drive are the ones at fault for any accidents they cause.

7. krystian

Posts: 423; Member since: Mar 16, 2016

No doubt. It's like suing car companies for allowing you to start your car when you have a high blood alcohol level. You buy the car knowing of this limitation. Educating your children and looking for signs of phone addiction are necessary. I'm at my phone a lot but I can be away from it and be at peace. I never touch my phone in the car. If I'm doing gps then it's mounted and voice activated but I still don't ever prioritize my phone over the road and only look when it's safe to.

8. Subie

Posts: 2364; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

I'm totally with you. I don't use my phone while I drive...period.

9. krystian

Posts: 423; Member since: Mar 16, 2016

It's sad because they don't want to accept the blame for it. It's a way to relieve the burden. Sucks really.

24. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

What blame do the parents have that they don't want to accept? It was another driver who was texting. Also, there's a bit of a difference between this and a car that won't start if you're inebriated. You'd have to add a bunch of hardware which the consumer would have to keep up for that to work. Here (I'm assuming they're using a combination of the accelerometer and GPS to make it work) it's a matter of software implementation. No added cost over what the phone currently costs, essentially flipping the switch.

30. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

their blame is small, but if u are defensively driving, and looking in the rear-view mirror after exiting the freeway when stopped in case of run away vehicles, they might have been able to get out of the way. the 65 mph only makes sense in a freeway off ramp scenario like i just described. otherwise face timing while street racing is the other possibility. and theyd be dumb as a Trump to combine street racing n face timing, and deserve jail house rape. set up a GoPro phone mount for facetime and race at least...jeeze

39. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

You can be defensively driving and still get into an accident. The rest of your remark I'm not even going to touch.

52. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

But its really, REALLY hard to get into an accident WHEN driving defensively. 4 example, slowing down some before an intersection, Even when YOU have the Green Light, just in case some some iSheep is facetiming (and/or driving drunk) above the speed limit and doesn't see that their light is red. because im already slowing down, i can brake b4 he hits me because i SEE that azs hole, b4 he hits me. or i can at least maneuver out of an instant death collision, into a more survivable one. paying attention (to your mirrors and other surroundings) pays life dividends

55. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

No matter how defensively you try to be, you don't have 360 degree awareness constantly. Anytime you have other people in the vehicle, that reduces your awareness. Traffic signs, pedestrians and animals, other vehicles all contribute to potential accidents. You're acting like people are machines, with perfect timing, awareness, and reaction, when they're not no matter how hard they try to be. However, by implementing this, it would eliminate one distraction, and the more distractions you eliminate, the better chance of not getting into an accident.

63. mr.reckless562

Posts: 162; Member since: Dec 22, 2016

true on its 1 less distraction, so ill +1 u. but Weather other ppl are in MY car or not, the road ALWAYS comes first. even if after a date, im lucky enough that she likes me enough to let me finger bang her in the front seat while were going home to bang, the Road ALWAYS comes 1st!! like sh!t, if i crash, thats kinda bad for foreplay, u know? but itd be a great way of lettin a girl down, i mean if ur wernt man enough to just have walked out on her when you saw u didnt want her in the first place XD

49. krystian

Posts: 423; Member since: Mar 16, 2016

Sorry didn't realize it was another driver thought it was their daughter. Either way responsibility lies solely on the person and the parents should do their best to educate kids. Schools should be educating kids and bringing law enforcement in to discuss these sorts of things. Law enforcement should have better tools to try and at least narrow down which cars have strong signals and then investigate further. Punishment should be really heavy with min fines at $1000 and taking driving privileges away on second offense. There was a time that seat belts were not being worn now it's unheard of. Society does need to use shaming in these cases. Except we are in an era where shaming is looked down upon.

56. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

You want police to look for data signals in cars to see if they're texting or video chatting? Forget for a second that those signals would almost be indistinguishable from things like radio, two way, and normal cellular signals, you're talking about essentially having FCC trucks running around trying to see if people are using their phones while driving or not. Now mulitply that by the amount of people they'd need to police. THAT makes more sense than implementing a block to keep people from using certain features while in motionm


Posts: 1168; Member since: Oct 05, 2015

Cars don't have tech to disabling the ignition in consumer models, so the comparison isn't exactly spot on. I have heard, though, that people with drunk driving charges have remote breathalyzers they have to use to prove that they're staying sober. If implemented in new cars, that'd be awesome I think.

26. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

You're correct. But as I stated above, with something like that, there would most likely be hardware maintenance to keep it running properly in addition to the initial costs of the hardware itself. That increases the cost of the vehicle itself and maintenance costs. The problem is, not everyone drinks, so they would be unfairly penalized. And if you made it an option, someone who doesn't drink wouldn't order it but the next person who owns the car may drink. On top of that, there's also the potential to spread diseases (if someone has a cold or some other illness and blows on the tube, then another healthy person uses it, the illness could spread. So really it's a logistical nightmare. But in this case, it adds no cost to the device to implement if they're using the accelerometer and GPS to sense when the car is in motion.

34. Subie

Posts: 2364; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft have spent Billions on software development. So while there might not be extra cost to the hardware of the device there would be cost to develop the software controlling it. Apple having a patent does not necessarily mean they have it fully developed and baked into IOS, where they can "flip the switch". Until this becomes a desired selling feature to the average consumer, or becomes a legal requirement the oem's have no incentive to spend the money on it for their devices.

38. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

I apparently mistaken assumed with patented software, which is essentially all this is since it probably uses existing hardware, that you had to have a working program before you could get said patent. Otherwise it's be an idea.

48. krystian

Posts: 423; Member since: Mar 16, 2016

Yes if there is maintenance required then it would be like the emission tests that are enfroced. And of course there will be software maintenance too with bugs or other work arounds that could be discovered. What about passengers in the car that want to use their phones, they aren't driving? How does Apple know which one is the driver? What if I'm going to the hospital and need to keep in touch with someone as a passenger but cant? And why are Google and Microsoft exempt from this all of a sudden, whether it's texting or FaceTime or whatever? And they obviously can't implement it because Apple owns the patent and they would have to pay royalties. So all of a sudden they make the patent invalid and Apple loses out?

59. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

As I've stated a few times here, Motorola has had something like this on their phones since 2013. Maybe not the exact same thing, but it accomplishes the same outcome. As for contacting people, I'm not talking about (and I don't think the patent is either) disabling all communications. You'd still have access to voice calling, but texting or video calling which takes more attention away from the road would be disabled. The Moto implementation even allows you to dictate your texts to the phone and send them without touching your phone, and reads incoming texts to you.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.