At least three lawsuits seeking class action status have been filed against Apple for slowing down iPhones with old batteries
Joan E. Solsman / CNET :
Context & Ripple Effects
Apple's admission that iOS throttles performance on iPhones with degraded batteries — framed as preventing unexpected shutdowns — landed days before the holidays, and plaintiffs' firms moved within hours: at least three putative class actions were filed in quick succession (the first wave on December 23, with more following the next day).
The legal exposure compounded fast. Within two months the docket had grown to roughly 60 class actions, up from about 30 in mid-January, and the litigation ultimately ended in a US settlement worth up to $500M — while a parallel UK mass action over hidden battery issues and throttling updates survived Apple's attempt to block it years later.
First-order effects
- Apple now faces class-certification fights in multiple US courts simultaneously, with plaintiffs alleging consumers effectively paid for new phones to escape slowdowns they weren't told about.
- iPhone owners with older devices gain a concrete damages claim and a ready-made vehicle for it, shifting the battery-throttling dispute from tech-forum grievance to formal litigation.
Second-order effects
- The early filings triggered a filing frenzy among US plaintiffs' firms — the docket grew from three suits to roughly sixty in under two months — making consolidation into a single coordinated class action the likely next procedural step.
- Any disclosure or remedy Apple offers (battery replacements, clearer messaging) gets priced against potential liability, raising the cost of shipping performance-affecting software changes without explicit user consent.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, undisclosed software-side trade-offs become a standing litigation category for consumer hardware: the same conduct drew a nine-figure US settlement and a surviving UK mass action, showing regulators and courts in multiple jurisdictions treating throttling as a disclosure failure rather than an engineering choice.
- Device makers face structural pressure to separate 'performance management' from perceived planned obsolescence — transparency around battery health and update effects shifts from optional courtesy to legal baseline.
The trend: Consumer-hardware companies are being pushed by courts on both sides of the Atlantic toward mandatory transparency whenever software updates degrade device performance.