For those who don’t know, Apple's ads made various claims about the iPhone's resistance to damage when submerged or otherwise exposed to water, including that some models could survive depths of four meters for 30 minutes.
However, the plaintiffs, two from New York and one from South Carolina, claimed that Apple's "false and misleading" misrepresentations let the company charge twice as much for iPhones than the cost of "average smartphones."
While US District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple's ads could mislead consumers, but they had not done enough to prove that their iPhones were damaged by "liquid contact." Apple said that they could withstand the water damage and there was a lack of evidence that Apple intended to overstate its water resistance claims, or that the plaintiffs relied on fraudulent marketing statements when buying their iPhones.
Spencer Sheehan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients are disappointed with the decision, and no decision has been made whether to appeal.