FRESNO, Calif. (CN) – Software provider LogMeIn on Wednesday won summary judgment and dismissal of federal class action claims that it did not properly inform customers that its free remote-access app might be replaced by a paid-for app.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Thurston found that lead plaintiff Darren Handy was unable to refute LogMeIn’s evidence that it did inform users that it could terminate its LogMeIn Free app.
LogMeIn at one point provided two products that gave customers remote access to desktop computers through a virtual private network. LogMeIn Free, the free app, allowed access from another laptop or desktop computer, while its paid app, Ignition, allowed access from a tablet or smartphone.
Handy said he installed LogMeIn Free in 2009 and then bought Ignition for $29.99 a year later, thinking it was a premium supplement to LogMeInFree.
In early 2014, LogMeIn introduced a third product, LogMeIn Pro, which required a subscription and annual fee. The company posted on its website that it was planning to gradually migrate users of Ignition and the free app to the new product, and said it would unify its portfolio of free and premium remote access products into the paid-only offering.
The LogMeIn Free app was discontinued, but the Ignition app continued to work.
Handy claimed that Ignition and LogMeIn Free were so inextricably intertwined that consumers would only use Ignition in tandem with LogMeIn Free, so the company effectively discontinued both apps.
Thurston disagreed, pointing out that Handy used LogMeIn Free for more than a year before buying Ignition, then used Ignition for more than a year after LogMeIn Free was discontinued.
“The fact that plaintiff wanted to use both services and did so does not establish that defendant’s actions as to one product constituted an action as to the other. The fact that some other users wanted to use – and did use – both products and assumed that they were meant to do so, proves nothing,” Thurston wrote.
Because the products were not intertwined, there was no need for LogMeIn to remind Handy when he purchased Ignition that LogMeIn Free could be terminated, the judge said, noting that LogMeIn Free’s terms and conditions stated that the app could be terminated.
“The failure of a consumer to read the terms and conditions before accepting them is insufficient to avoid the contract,” Thurston wrote.
Nor did she buy Handy’s false advertising claim based on LogMeIn’s statement on its website that it was going to “gradually” phase out Ignition as it moved to LogMeIn Pro. Handy claimed that the company never actually discontinued Ignition and that the statement was intended to induce customers to pay for the new app.
But Thurston said that though Ignition continues to work, this does not show that LogMeIn did not intend, or does not intend, to discontinue Ignition at some point.
She added that the statement did not trick Handy, since he did not buy a subscription as a result. Except for a few weeks, he continued to use the service uninterrupted throughout 2014 and 2015, Thurston said.
“While he may be outraged by what he feels occurred to others, the court is not clear why he believes that this outrage makes him aggrieved such that he can vindicate this grievance in this litigation,” Thurston wrote, granting summary judgment and closing the case.
LogMeIn declined to comment on the case and an attorney for Handy did not return a request for comment..
- Judge Lets Berkeley Warn About Cellphones
- FTC Accuses DeVry U.|of Deceptive Trade