iPhones at Target
Allegations: Falsely advertising that phones are unlocked
May 2016: The Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petitions for rehearing.
April 2016: Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (i.e., a rehearing by all of the judges of the Ninth Circuit, rather than the selected three-judge panel).
February 2016: The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the action. (In re: iPhone 4S Consumer Litigation, Case No. 14-15487, 9th Cir.)
February 2014: A federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, Inc. The complaint, which was originally filed in 2012, alleges that the company’s advertisements portray Siri performing basic tasks – such as making appointments, finding restaurants, crafting text messages, and searching information –when, in reality, Siri is unable to perform these tasks “on a consistent basis.” The judge dismissed the complaint because, among other things, plaintiffs did not identify specific false or misleading statements made by Apple to promote Siri. The judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning plaintiffs cannot refile their lawsuit at a later date. (In Re iPhone 4S Consumer Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-01127, N. D. CA.).
For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against Apple and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.
Allegations: Falsely advertising that phones are unlocked
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as providing superior audio and having noise-cancelling features
Allegations: Marketing products as safe when wearers may suffer injuries
Allegations: Misrepresenting that an iOS update was compatible with older devices
Allegations: Failing to adequately disclose that products do not come with power adapters needed to charge devices
Allegations: Deceptively marketing Powerbeats headphones as “BUILT TO ENDURE” and the “BEST HEADPHONES FOR WORKING OUT”
Allegations: Misleadingly representing that owners of Apple devices who purchase iCloud subscriptions get the storage in the plan plus the 5GB of storage automatically provided to all owners of Apple…
Allegations: Misrepresenting that replacement devices under warranties will be new devices when they are actually refurbished, reconditioned, and secondhand
Allegations: Misleadingly representing that the wristwatch is capable of measuring blood oxygen levels when the device does not provide accurate measurements
Allegations: Misleadingly representing that the iOS 9 software was compatible with and would improve the performance of the iPhone 4s when the update slowed down the performance of phones and…
Allegations: Falsely representing that Apple will not collect data about consumers’ activity in apps if they turn off certain privacy settings
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing Beats Powerbeats Pro wireless earbuds
Allegations: Falsely marketing smart watches as “swimproof” and water resistant when they’re not
Allegations: Promoting illegal virtual gambling games
Allegations: Promoting illegal virtual gambling games
Allegations: Promoting illegal virtual gambling games
Allegations: Using ratings categories that fail to disclose that certain games use loot boxes
Allegations: Misleadingly representing that it would provide subscribers with iCloud storage when their data was stored on cloud servers owned by other entities
Allegations: Failing to disclose that devices unexpectedly power off due to a defect and an update resulted in reduced processing speeds and other operations
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing that consumers can “buy” digital content when Apple does not own all of the content it sells and must revoke access to content if its license to…
Allegations: Promoting illegal virtual gambling games
Allegations: Failing to disclose that the iPhone XR has only half of the connectivity and 4G speed of the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing phones as water resistant without clarifying the difference between water-proof and water-resistant
Allegations: Misleadingly representing that consumers may “buy” content by paying a higher price when Apple may revoke consumers’ access to “purchased” content at any time and for any reason
November 2019: A federal judge dismissed claims that the company misrepresented the size of the screen, but allowed claims that the company misrepresented the pixel count to move forward. December…
In August 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple for allegedly misleadingly marketing the MacBook Pro laptop with a touch bar as having “truer-to-life pictures with realistically vivid details”…
April 2020: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. To read the decision, click here. November 2018: A federal judge dismissed…
In April 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Costco for allegedly falsely advertising that 2nd Generation Apple AirPods are capable of wireless charging and come with a wireless charging…
A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple Inc. in February 2019. Plaintiffs claim that the company misleadingly advertised that the iPhone 7 would be compatible with Apple chargers…
November 2018: A state court judge granted final approval of a settlement agreement. According to the terms, class members with an active iTunes Account will automatically receive a credit in…
In November 2018, a false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple regarding the marketing for a holiday sales event that ran from Black Friday to Cyber Monday. The complaint…
In October 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple regarding the marketing of television show season bundles on the iTunes store on Apple TV 4 and 4K devices. Specifically,…
In May 2018, a federal judge granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motion to dismiss a false advertising class-action lawsuit that was originally filed against it in September…
In July 2017, a federal judge granted preliminary approval of a settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Apple and several app developers. The 2014 complaint alleges that the companies misrepresented…
In November 2017, a federal judge denied Apple’s motion to dismiss a false advertising class-action lawsuit filed against it in 2015. The complaint, which was amended in 2016, alleges that…
May 2014: This case was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled., the reasons for which have not been…
October 2014: This action was voluntarily dismissed because the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed. The dismissal was When a complaint is dismissed…
March 2016: A federal judge dismissed this action finding that plaintiffs did not satisfy the heightened-pleading standard for fraud-based claims and did not state a plausible claim. The dismissal was…
In November 2016, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple for allegedly deceptively advertising the AppleCare extended warranty purchased with Apple products by failing to adequately disclose details about the…
November 2016: A Notice of Appeal regarding the dismissal of this matter was filed. (Phillips and Cottrell et al v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 16-17189, 9th Cir.) October 2016: A…
In September 2016, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple for allegedly misleadingly marketing that consumers who sign-up for the iPhone Upgrade Program and make monthly payments can upgrade their…
August 2016: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.. The reasons for the dismissal have not been disclosed. December 2015: A…
In February 2015, plaintiffs who filed a false advertising class-action lawsuit against Apple. Inc. voluntarily dismissed the case. The complaint, which was filed the same month, alleged that the company…
Fine print discloses numerous conditions tied to new iPhone promotion.
Paid endorsement or uncompensated editorial content? These celeb social media posts are tough to tell.
How much storage space do consumers really have?
Conflicting iTunes policy on offensive material doesn’t seem to benefit the consumer.
Internet giant to refund parents for charges their children ran up playing mobile apps.