In this cause the suit is that the gun is defective, it can fire without a trigger pull.
The Apple suit is claiming negligence on the part of Apple because they did NOT do something "simple" to prevent tracking. It'll likely come down to whether that "simple" thing actually was, whether it was known, etc, etc.
How a product is marketed can also come into play, which is why Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes.
That's talking how it can't (or shouldn't) be used for crimes, but it starts to get a little close to Mr Incredible telling the old lady what not to do at some point, and that can be the point the lawyers aim at.
In this cause the suit is that the gun is defective, it can fire without a trigger pull.
The Apple suit is claiming negligence on the part of Apple because they did NOT do something "simple" to prevent tracking. It'll likely come down to whether that "simple" thing actually was, whether it was known, etc, etc.
How a product is marketed can also come into play, which is why Apple has been very careful (just like gun manufacturers) to never say or imply that it could be used for crimes.