Apple to pay $14.4M to settle Canadian 'Batterygate' lawsuit

AppleInsider

A court in British Columbia has given its approval for a settlement that will see Apple pay out up to $14.4 million, to end a class-action lawsuit over alleged iPhone throttling.

An iPhone battery

The class-action lawsuit alleged that Apple's software updates slowed down the iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 models, allegations that Apple firmly denies. However, to deal with the lawsuit, Apple agreed to make payments to the class, totaling between $11.1 million and $14.4 million.

The defined class consists of Apple customers who bought an iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, or iPhone SE running iOS 10.2.1 or later, or an iPhone 7 or 7 Plus running iOS 11.2 or later, before December 21, 2017. It applies to all residents in all provinces, except for Quebec, and that a serial number must be supplied.

For their trouble, consumers can expect a payment between $17.50 and $150 if accepted in the class. It is unclear how much of the fund will be paid to lawyers in the lawsuit.

CBC reports that similar lawsuits were filed in Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan.

Class counsel Michael Peerless said the judge was fair and reasonable with their decision on the proposed settlement. While Apple says the settlement isn't an admission of fault, Peerless adds that that Apple "did the right thing and came forward."

The class-action suit result is the latest that Apple has to face regarding the so-called "batterygate" saga, which involved a slowdown of iPhone performance triggered in software updates, in order to protect the device over battery wear. Apple maintains the updates were to maintain stability and to benefit consumers, not to push them to pay for upgrades.

In January, Apple started making payments from its 2020 $500 million settlement to end a similar U.S. class action lawsuit, with class members being paid over $92 per claim.



Read on AppleInsider

robin huber

No good deed goes unpunished. 

AppleZulu

For those who have forgotten, the "throttling" in question was iOS software that -for phones with an old, degraded battery- would slow down intensive, peak energy demand operations, in order to spread out that energy demand over additional seconds, so that the weakened battery's output could still power the complete operation. The alternative without this adaption would be a system crash, freezing up the app or even shutting down the phone. Old batteries lose capacity. It's physics. 

The claim that this was planned obsolescence, intended to push iPhone customers to buy a new phone, is erroneous. Which would more quickly force a decision on replacement: a phone that slows down, or a phone that crashes? Slow is annoying. Crashing is non-functional. Throttling would actually delay customers' decisions to go buy a new phone, yet this is the thing Apple is forced to pay out for. 

jabohn

 It applies to all residents in all provinces in British Columbia, except for Quebec.

Pardon me? British Columbia IS a province.

skippingrock

"appleinsider staff"  Please fix this sentence:

It applies to all residents in all provinces in British Columbia, except for Quebec, and that a serial number must be supplied.

It should say:

It applies to all residents in all provinces in Canada, except for Quebec, and that a serial number must be supplied.

eriamjh

jabohn said:

 It applies to all residents in all provinces in British Columbia, except for Quebec.

Pardon me? British Columbia IS a province.

Right.  It should say that Quebec is not part of Canada, but, rather, the world's largest theme park.

jdw

When will people learn...

Companies DO NOT pay for stupid lawsuits like that.
YOU AND I PAY FOR IT!  

That's right.  We pay a premium to Apple, not only for great design and the world's best OS, but we also pay the stupid morons of the world indirectly when they sue Apple and win. We then have people rush in to say that it doesn't matter because "in the greater scheme of things, it's small money for Apple."  They always make ridiculous comparisons like that rather than looking at that truly big money in absolute terms.  Fact is, somebody pays for it.  Apple pays it in your behalf first, then we the consumer pay it back later, slowly, over time, as we buy Apple products and services.

Am I happy about that?  Heck no!  
Is it Apple's fault?  No.  
It's the fault of the stupid morons out there, and their blood sucking lawyers.

Sometimes I wish nobody had the right to sue about anything.  Too many people abuse the very system that is supposed to keep order in society, and society pays a heavy price for it.

AppleZulu

jdw said:

When will people learn...

Companies DO NOT pay for stupid lawsuits like that.
YOU AND I PAY FOR IT!  

That's right.  We pay a premium to Apple, not only for great design and the world's best OS, but we also pay the stupid morons of the world indirectly when they sue Apple and win. We then have people rush in to say that it doesn't matter because "in the greater scheme of things, it's small money for Apple."  They always make ridiculous comparisons like that rather than looking at that truly big money in absolute terms.  Fact is, somebody pays for it.  Apple pays it in your behalf first, then we the consumer pay it back later, slowly, over time, as we buy Apple products and services.

Am I happy about that?  Heck no!  
Is it Apple's fault?  No.  
It's the fault of the stupid morons out there, and their blood sucking lawyers.

Sometimes I wish nobody had the right to sue about anything.  Too many people abuse the very system that is supposed to keep order in society, and society pays a heavy price for it.

I dunno. There have been some big defamation lawsuits recently that have been the only tool available to take the profitability out of telling big lies for big money. That’s a benefit to society. 

MplsP

robin huber said:

No good deed goes unpunished. 

AppleZulu said:

For those who have forgotten, the "throttling" in question was iOS software that -for phones with an old, degraded battery- would slow down intensive, peak energy demand operations, in order to spread out that energy demand over additional seconds, so that the weakened battery's output could still power the complete operation. The alternative without this adaption would be a system crash, freezing up the app or even shutting down the phone. Old batteries lose capacity. It's physics. 

The claim that this was planned obsolescence, intended to push iPhone customers to buy a new phone, is erroneous. Which would more quickly force a decision on replacement: a phone that slows down, or a phone that crashes? Slow is annoying. Crashing is non-functional. Throttling would actually delay customers' decisions to go buy a new phone, yet this is the thing Apple is forced to pay out for. 

And to refresh your memory, Apple said NOTHING about the fact that they were throttling the phones. Had they simply been transparent there would have been no issue. Their lack of transparency created a very valid question - did they do it out of altruism or did they use the potential for crashing as an excuse to secretly throttle phones so people would upgrade? The point can be argued either way which has cost Apple millions. 

AppleZulu

MplsP said:

robin huber said:

No good deed goes unpunished. 

AppleZulu said:

For those who have forgotten, the "throttling" in question was iOS software that -for phones with an old, degraded battery- would slow down intensive, peak energy demand operations, in order to spread out that energy demand over additional seconds, so that the weakened battery's output could still power the complete operation. The alternative without this adaption would be a system crash, freezing up the app or even shutting down the phone. Old batteries lose capacity. It's physics. 

The claim that this was planned obsolescence, intended to push iPhone customers to buy a new phone, is erroneous. Which would more quickly force a decision on replacement: a phone that slows down, or a phone that crashes? Slow is annoying. Crashing is non-functional. Throttling would actually delay customers' decisions to go buy a new phone, yet this is the thing Apple is forced to pay out for. 

And to refresh your memory, Apple said NOTHING about the fact that they were throttling the phones. Had they simply been transparent there would have been no issue. Their lack of transparency created a very valid question - did they do it out of altruism or did they use the potential for crashing as an excuse to secretly throttle phones so people would upgrade? The point can be argued either way which has cost Apple millions. 

Most iOS patches and fixes happen with minimal explanation. You seem to have missed the point that a crashing phone will cause people to upgrade much more quickly than would a slowed phone. A phone that stops working requires more immediate attention than does a phone that’s more sluggish but still completes all tasks. If Apple did nothing to address the issue, they would get that result. As such, it makes no sense to suggest that they used “the potential for crashing as an excuse to secretly throttle phones so people would upgrade.” 

They issued a fix to improve results for suboptimal performance. Phones that previously would cease functioning would now continue to function, albeit more slowly. 

If the issue were about transparency, it would have gone away, because Apple explained the fix as soon as people started asking about it. But then, just as you did right here, the explanation was ignored and the nonsensical alternate theory repeated ad nauseam, like Nigel Tufnel repeating “these go to eleven.” (https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc?si=C3YXN5AQTpP8o9VH)

This settlement with no admission of wrongdoing is what finally results from that. A few users will be able to get a few dollars, but more importantly, the lawyers will all get paid to go away. Throttling is now a commonly known component of battery management, so new lawsuits won’t re-emerge on this issue at least. 

uphill

eriamjh said:

jabohn said:

 It applies to all residents in all provinces in British Columbia, except for Quebec.

Pardon me? British Columbia IS a province.

Right.  It should say that Quebec is not part of Canada, but, rather, the world's largest theme park.

Yes! I grew up in Montreal and four years ago finally had the opportunity to "rentrer chez moi" (move back to the home I love). Especially now that I am retired, it really seems that this wonderful city and the province it is in, are indeed like a big theme park. Nowhere of course is perfect, but for me exploring and enjoying all the great places and events here is an endless source of pleasure.

MplsP

AppleZulu said:

MplsP said:

robin huber said:

No good deed goes unpunished. 

AppleZulu said:

For those who have forgotten, the "throttling" in question was iOS software that -for phones with an old, degraded battery- would slow down intensive, peak energy demand operations, in order to spread out that energy demand over additional seconds, so that the weakened battery's output could still power the complete operation. The alternative without this adaption would be a system crash, freezing up the app or even shutting down the phone. Old batteries lose capacity. It's physics. 

The claim that this was planned obsolescence, intended to push iPhone customers to buy a new phone, is erroneous. Which would more quickly force a decision on replacement: a phone that slows down, or a phone that crashes? Slow is annoying. Crashing is non-functional. Throttling would actually delay customers' decisions to go buy a new phone, yet this is the thing Apple is forced to pay out for. 

And to refresh your memory, Apple said NOTHING about the fact that they were throttling the phones. Had they simply been transparent there would have been no issue. Their lack of transparency created a very valid question - did they do it out of altruism or did they use the potential for crashing as an excuse to secretly throttle phones so people would upgrade? The point can be argued either way which has cost Apple millions. 

Most iOS patches and fixes happen with minimal explanation. You seem to have missed the point that a crashing phone will cause people to upgrade much more quickly than would a slowed phone. A phone that stops working requires more immediate attention than does a phone that’s more sluggish but still completes all tasks. If Apple did nothing to address the issue, they would get that result. As such, it makes no sense to suggest that they used “the potential for crashing as an excuse to secretly throttle phones so people would upgrade.” 

They issued a fix to improve results for suboptimal performance. Phones that previously would cease functioning would now continue to function, albeit more slowly. 

If the issue were about transparency, it would have gone away, because Apple explained the fix as soon as people started asking about it. But then, just as you did right here, the explanation was ignored and the nonsensical alternate theory repeated ad nauseam, like Nigel Tufnel repeating “these go to eleven.” (https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc?si=C3YXN5AQTpP8o9VH)

This settlement with no admission of wrongdoing is what finally results from that. A few users will be able to get a few dollars, but more importantly, the lawyers will all get paid to go away. Throttling is now a commonly known component of battery management, so new lawsuits won’t re-emerge on this issue at least. 

And you seem to have missed the points that most phones wouldn’t crash and a slow phone secretly crippled by software will also cause people to upgrade. 

The issue was totally about transparency. Apple only issued an explanation after the fact. At that point it becomes an excuse. They also didn’t admit or tell anyone until people started asking. If they were being transparent they would have clearly explained what they were doing in the release notes. 

No one is ignoring the explanation, but you are ignoring an alternate explanation. No one can definitively prove either one and that is Apple’s problem. Were they helping people or simply using it as an excuse to drive people to upgrade? One simple statement in the software release notes would have fixed it. Transparently. 

AppleZulu

MplsP said:

AppleZulu said:

MplsP said:

robin huber said:

No good deed goes unpunished. 

AppleZulu said:

For those who have forgotten, the "throttling" in question was iOS software that -for phones with an old, degraded battery- would slow down intensive, peak energy demand operations, in order to spread out that energy demand over additional seconds, so that the weakened battery's output could still power the complete operation. The alternative without this adaption would be a system crash, freezing up the app or even shutting down the phone. Old batteries lose capacity. It's physics. 

The claim that this was planned obsolescence, intended to push iPhone customers to buy a new phone, is erroneous. Which would more quickly force a decision on replacement: a phone that slows down, or a phone that crashes? Slow is annoying. Crashing is non-functional. Throttling would actually delay customers' decisions to go buy a new phone, yet this is the thing Apple is forced to pay out for. 

And to refresh your memory, Apple said NOTHING about the fact that they were throttling the phones. Had they simply been transparent there would have been no issue. Their lack of transparency created a very valid question - did they do it out of altruism or did they use the potential for crashing as an excuse to secretly throttle phones so people would upgrade? The point can be argued either way which has cost Apple millions. 

Most iOS patches and fixes happen with minimal explanation. You seem to have missed the point that a crashing phone will cause people to upgrade much more quickly than would a slowed phone. A phone that stops working requires more immediate attention than does a phone that’s more sluggish but still completes all tasks. If Apple did nothing to address the issue, they would get that result. As such, it makes no sense to suggest that they used “the potential for crashing as an excuse to secretly throttle phones so people would upgrade.” 

They issued a fix to improve results for suboptimal performance. Phones that previously would cease functioning would now continue to function, albeit more slowly. 

If the issue were about transparency, it would have gone away, because Apple explained the fix as soon as people started asking about it. But then, just as you did right here, the explanation was ignored and the nonsensical alternate theory repeated ad nauseam, like Nigel Tufnel repeating “these go to eleven.” (https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc?si=C3YXN5AQTpP8o9VH)

This settlement with no admission of wrongdoing is what finally results from that. A few users will be able to get a few dollars, but more importantly, the lawyers will all get paid to go away. Throttling is now a commonly known component of battery management, so new lawsuits won’t re-emerge on this issue at least. 

And you seem to have missed the points that most phones wouldn’t crash and a slow phone secretly crippled by software will also cause people to upgrade. 

The issue was totally about transparency. Apple only issued an explanation after the fact. At that point it becomes an excuse. They also didn’t admit or tell anyone until people started asking. If they were being transparent they would have clearly explained what they were doing in the release notes. 

No one is ignoring the explanation, but you are ignoring an alternate explanation. No one can definitively prove either one and that is Apple’s problem. Were they helping people or simply using it as an excuse to drive people to upgrade? One simple statement in the software release notes would have fixed it. Transparently. 

You’re funny. If you don’t believe the explanation made when people asked, you wouldn’t have believed it had they (uncharacteristically) published a detailed explanation in the software release notes. 

Perhaps you should peruse typical release notes. Apple iOS update release notes provide short, single sentence explanations for changes to user experiences. That wouldn’t meet your apparent expectation for transparency. 

Ironically, had they published a paragraph or a page in the release notes to explain throttling for degraded batteries, the internet would’ve lit up with cynics saying ‘Apple never publishes detailed release notes! Why would they do so this one time? They obviously went out of their way to over explain this because they’re really just pushing users to buy new phones!’

It’s not a transparency issue. It’s a cynics and opportunists will go with their preferred narrative no matter what the truth is nor what Apple does to explain the truth issue. 

Here’s a hint for what the truth actually is: Apple still throttles iPhones to manage peak loads on old batteries. If you want the detailed explanation, search “iPhone battery and performance” in the Support app. 

If this had been a scam, Apple would’ve quietly discontinued the practice because they were “caught.”

Instead, they continue to use and refine the process because a slow phone is better for the user than a crashed phone. The no admissions of wrongdoing settlements are about paying off the opportunist lawyers to make them go away, while Apple continues to do the thing that best serves their customers.