Apple to Take Its First Shots at Narrowing Suits Over Throttled iPhones
Apple's lawyers will ask a federal judge on Friday to toss claims involving software changes that caused certain iPhone models to slow performance, and to "reject plaintiffs' counsel's attempt to make this the first worldwide consumer MDL in history."
September 27, 2018 at 05:34 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers for Apple Inc. are set to ask a federal judge in San Jose to toss privacy and trespass claims brought on behalf of owners of certain iPhones after the performance of their devices slowed following updates to their operating systems.
Plaintiffs argued that Apple made the changes, dubbed a “feature” by the company, to the performance speeds of its iPhone 6 and iPhone 6S devices to spur consumers into buying newer, more expensive models. They also claim Apple failed to disclose those changes until customers complained and a technical expert demonstrated that the phones had curbed performance.
But Apple's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher claim that customers signed off on updates to the phones iOS software, which were designed to avoid spiking electrical demands on aging lithium ion batteries to avoid sudden shutdowns.
“While Apple acknowledged that it could have communicated better about the performance management feature, its warranty has long informed customers that batteries are consumable goods with a limited lifespan,” the Gibson Dunn lawyers wrote in a motion to dismiss the first six causes of action of the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint. “Software companies may offer their users updates without liability for trespass and computer abuse.”
On top of the arguments against the claims themselves, Apple's lawyers are taking aim at some of the plaintiffs the 39-lawyer plaintiff team appointed to oversee the multidistrict litigation, particularly non-U.S. citizens and those who own the throttled phones abroad.
“This court should reject plaintiffs' counsel's attempt to make this the first worldwide consumer MDL in history,” Apple's lawyers wrote. “There is no legal basis or precedent to expand this court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of customers from 40 foreign countries.”
Plaintiffs counsel, led by Joseph Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame, California, and Laurence King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer in San Francisco, have argued in turn that Apple's motion to dismiss was “outlandish.” They note that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California's privacy laws aren't limited to behavior in the U.S. and that Apple's devices around the world were affected in the same way.
“Apple admits that millions of its premium devices have a problem—the battery cannot handle the demands placed on it by the software (iOS), resulting in frequent 'unexpected shutdowns,'” the plaintiffs lawyers wrote. ”Not only did Apple fail to disclose the defects in its marketing (and on the packaging of the devices), but Apple also created a scheme to further conceal the defects via the iOS updates containing undisclosed code that throttled device speed.”
The hearing, set for Friday morning before U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California, will also tackle the plaintiffs' request that Apple Inc. stop all communications with customers about offers of battery replacements unless they notify them about their right to sue. Apple has offered customers $50 credit refunds or discounted battery replacements since announcing in December that it slowed speeds for the affected phones.
In response, Apple's lawyers have said they have offered a stipulation to establish that participation in the iPhone battery replacement program or credit doesn't waive claims in the litigation, but that plaintiffs haven't moved forward with that stipulation.
“Plaintiffs admit that Apple has not been communicating about the litigation right now; they want the court to compel Apple to speak about the litigation, as part of communications about a different issue,” the Gibson Dunn lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, identify any communication here that requires correction.”
Read more:
Plaintiffs Lawyers Say Apple Is Forcing Legal Waivers on iPhone Throttling Customers
Judge Names 39-Member Plaintiffs Team to Lead iPhone Throttling MDL
Lawsuits Stack Up Against Apple After News It Slowed Older iPhones
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
Shareholder Democracy? The Chatter Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Is Spurring Between Lawyers and Clients
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Who Are the Judges Assigned to Challenges to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order?
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Directed Verdict Win for Cisco in a West Texas Patent Case
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Womble Bond Becomes First Firm in UK to Roll Out AI Tool Firmwide
- 5Will a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to a Dark Horse US Firm in China?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250