Apple has asked a London court to dismiss a $2 billion lawsuit accusing the tech giant of hiding defective batteries in millions of iPhones by slowing performance through a software adjustment. The move arrives amid growing scrutiny of how large tech companies manage aging hardware and supply chain decisions that affect everyday use for users in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Reuters reports that the case carries a regulatory and consumer-protection dimension, centered on claims that performance-management actions were taken without clear disclosure.
The suit, filed by consumer-rights advocate Justin Gutmann on behalf of UK iPhone users, asserts that Apple knew about battery degradation in certain models and implemented remedies without openly informing customers. The plaintiffs argue that Apple secretly installed a power-management feature intended to extend battery life and prevent unexpected shutdowns, resulting in slower performance on some devices. The core claim is that device longevity was prioritized over immediate speed, potentially shaping user experience and overall device value without transparent notice.
In its defense, Apple calls the allegations baseless and maintains that there is no widespread battery defect affecting its devices. The company concedes that a subset of iPhone 6s units qualified for complimentary battery replacements but disputes broader claims of systemic battery problems. Apple emphasizes that most devices perform within expected parameters and that any perceived slowdowns were tied to protective measures designed to safeguard hardware and user data under certain conditions.
As part of its argument, Apple points to a power-management update released in 2017, created to stabilize performance on devices with aging or weaker batteries. The company contends that the update caused only a modest average slowdown of about 10 percent on iPhone 6 devices and argues that such adjustments are common practice for modern smartphones powered by aging batteries. The defense claims these measures were transparent to users who faced unexpected reboots during periods of high demand or low battery, and that the technology was meant to balance speed with safety and battery preservation.
The legal posture was presented by Apple’s attorney, David Wolfson, who urged the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that the claims do not demonstrate deceptive intent or widespread harm. He contends that the challenge to performance-management practices lacks sufficient evidentiary support and that the relevant business practices align with consumer expectations for electronic devices reliant on aging hardware. The argument reflects a broader conversation about how tech companies implement maintenance updates while balancing performance, longevity, and user satisfaction in a fast-changing market with evolving hardware capabilities.
Context from other jurisdictions adds another layer to the discussion. In a separate, well-known U.S. case decided in 2020, a jury or court found that Apple would pay a substantial sum, around $113 million, in relation to broader questions about slowing down older iPhone models as part of its battery-management strategy. This verdict underscored the tension between product optimization practices and consumer expectations, especially when technology choices intersect with cost considerations and perceived value. The UK proceedings are being watched closely by observers who track how similar legal theories perform across different legal systems, consumer-protection norms, and regulatory environments in North America and Europe.
Across the Atlantic, the case raises questions about disclosure, transparency, and the responsibilities of tech companies toward users who rely on devices daily. It invites scrutiny of how battery health, performance management, and software updates are communicated and whether customers should expect full visibility into updates that could affect speed, longevity, and reliability. As proceedings unfold, industry observers anticipate a broader dialogue about governance, consumer rights, and the balance between extending device life and maintaining peak performance across generations of smartphones.