Apple is not done with the controversy over the restricted iPhones. Years after the French complaint for planned obsolescence, it is the turn of British justice to look into Apple’s practices.
Like a little air of deja vu. In Britain, a new lawsuit has just been filed against Apple, accused of knowingly limiting the performance of its older phones during the deployment of an update in 2017. If the case reminds you of something, this is quite normal since it is the case of the restrained iPhones on which the French justice had already looked into a few years ago.
Justin Gutmann, a specialist in consumer protection, is demanding a fine of 768 million pounds from Apple (nearly 900 million euros) for alleged deceptive practices. In the viewfinder of this legal action, Apple’s lack of communication on the effects of the famous 2017 update. Deployed, according to Apple, to preserve the battery of old iPhones and prevent them from premature death, this update day has resulted in limiting the performance of some mobiles with tired batteries.
Apple attacked for its lack of communication
According to Justin Gutmann, Apple had not, at the time, detailed the precise content of this update or the effects it could have on older phones. Information on the subject was indeed shared by Apple on its site, but in a second step, says the complaint. The consequences of installing this update have therefore not been clearly explained, points out Justin Gutmann, Apple contenting itself with saying that this version “improves energy management during peak activity“. Independent tests commissioned on this occasion claim that the performance of certain iPhones (in particular the 6s and 7) may have been reduced by 58%.
The specialist even accuses Apple of having pushed this update to excess by sometimes showing up to 70 notifications on the subject and explaining that devices that did not install it exposed themselves to security risks – which is absolutely true. “Instead of doing what is honest and legal for its customers, such as offering a free replacement, repair service or compensation, Apple tricked them into hiding a tool in software updates that slowed their devices down to at 58%“explains the expert. Note that Apple has indeed ended up offering battery replacement operations at preferential rates to those who were affected by the problem.
In France, planned obsolescence is becoming clearer
This new complaint, which comes years after the controversy, adopts a different angle of attack from that of the French case of 2018. Justin Gutmann attacks Apple for lack of communication and transparency, where in 2018 the company had directly been sued for planned obsolescence. Offense which had not been retained by justice, which preferred to condemn Apple for a “misleading business practice by omission“. A problem very close to that raised by Justin Gutmann.
Nowadays, “no convictions have been pronounced on the basis of the offense of planned obsolescence“indicates the HOP association. In question, an overly narrow definition of the offense which, until recently, could only apply if it was proven that a maneuver of this kind was intended”increase the replacement rate“. A very difficult condition to prove according to the association. The law of November 2021 changed this detail and now defines the offense as any “use of techniques, including software, by which the person responsible for placing a product on the market aims to deliberately reduce its lifespan*”.