The complaint alleges that Apple used batteries in iPhone 6 and 7 devices that were “particularly susceptible” to loss of performance over time. As the phones are designed to shut down when the battery cannot supply sufficient voltage to support the phone’s processing needs, this triggered a higher number of shutdowns than usual as the batteries aged. , according to the complaint.To address this issue, the complaint alleges that Apple created software updates that it said “would improve power management,” but instead limited or slowed down the phone’s processing capacity. This has led to issues such as longer app launch times, reduced screen brightness and lower speaker volume, according to the complaint. The complaint cited several instances in which Apple had misled consumers about the true purpose of software updates.
“Rather than being frank or frank with its customers, Apple has chosen to distort both the nature of [shut down] problem, and the limitation solution, to its customers. Apple did not reverse the course of this internal decision until it was publicly denounced for its deception by the press at the end of December 2017, ”notes the complaint.
“In the end, the value of these consumers’ iPhones was less than it would have been if Apple had provided these customers with the information and the means to make informed choices about their devices,” the complaint adds.
As part of the settlement, Apple has agreed to provide “clear and easily visible information” on its website that explains how the company deals with battery performance issues, and to offer “clear and easily visible advice.” when an update “materially affects the processing of the iPhone.” performance ”, among other terms.
“With this settlement, the tech company is committed to providing consumers with clear and visible communication about lithium-ion batteries, unscheduled shutdowns and performance management,” said Los Angeles County Attorney Jackie Lacey, in a statement.
Becerra’s statement says Apple has already paid $ 500 million to settle a private class action lawsuit over the issues raised by its office.
An Apple spokesperson declined to comment on the settlement, but pointed to a section of the agreement that states that “nothing contained in this document may be considered or construed as an admission or concession of ” a violation of any law, rule or regulation, or any other question of fact or law, or of any liability or wrongdoing, which Apple expressly denies. No part of this judgment, including its representations and covenants, constitutes proof of liability, fault or wrongdoing on Apple’s part. “