Apple paying up to $500 million to settle iPhone battery slowdown lawsuits

Myriad class action suits against Apple's battery OS update that could have resulted in a device with a depleted battery performing tasks slower may be coming to an end.

Apple has agreed to pay about $25 per iPhone 6 through iPhone 7 Plus, inclusive of the iPhone SE, that ran the iOS 10.2.1 update or later. Owners of the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus that ran iOS 11.2 or later before Dec. 21, 2017 are also able to file for compensation.

In a report on Monday, Reuters noted that the class-action settlement still requires approval by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California.

Attorneys for the multiple suits filed called the settlement "fair, reasonable, and adequate" and "considerable by any degree." Apple's discounted battery replacement program — now expired — offered replacements for $29 per phone.

Attorneys working on the case are seeking up to $93 million — 30% of the $310 million payout pool. They are also seeking $1.5 million in expenses above and beyond the 30%.

At present, Apple has no comment on the matter.

Battery Controversey

In Apple's iOS 10.2.1 update, the company solved a problem where iPhones would shut down, depending on the battery output voltage. In iPhones with a worn, chemically-depleted battery that cannot hold its charge over time, too low a voltage for an iPhone's load could cause the smartphone to unexpectedly shut down, in order to protect its components.

Apple's solution was to "smooth out the instantaneous peaks" where worn batteries are detected, effectively slowing down the iPhone in the process. After admitting in December 2017 that some software changers were made to prevent shutdowns, Apple apologized and offered reduced out-of-warranty battery replacements at $29.

Shortly after acknowledging the slowdowns, Apple was hit by a string of attempted class-action lawsuits, accusing Apple of depreciating the value of the iPhone, that users didn't agree to the feature's implementation, as well as not allowing devices to run at their original speeds.

Along with the lawsuits, Apple has become the subject of multiple investigations and probes by international regulators, which in some cases has resulted in fines of up to $11.4 million.

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

43 Comments

pulseimages 653 comments · 8 Years

About 4 years ago

I wish the $29 battery replacement offer was still ongoing. My iPhone SE needs a second battery replacement and I barely got a year out of the first replacement.

hodar 366 comments · 14 Years

$500 Million. All Apple had to do was throw up a pop-up window saying "iPhone Battery is degraded, the performance of this iPhone will be reduced, to prolong useable iPhone battery life."

Then, the user of the iPhone would know his performance was degraded, and why; and he could make the decision whether the degradation of performance was worth the cost of replacing the battery.

rob53 3307 comments · 13 Years

hodar said:

$500 Million. All Apple had to do was throw up a pop-up window saying "iPhone Battery is degraded, the performance of this iPhone will be reduced, to prolong useable iPhone battery life."

Then, the user of the iPhone would know his performance was degraded, and why; and he could make the decision whether the degradation of performance was worth the cost of replacing the battery.

Apple would still have been sued for your message. Consumers and ambulance chasing lawyers always want things to last forever and rarely understand why they don’t. This should never have gone to court but there’s always a judge that will accept it.

robin huber 4025 comments · 22 Years

No good deed goes unpunished. If only Apple had published their intention up front, this nonsense could have been avoided.

MplsP 4020 comments · 8 Years

hodar said:

$500 Million. All Apple had to do was throw up a pop-up window saying "iPhone Battery is degraded, the performance of this iPhone will be reduced, to prolong useable iPhone battery life."

Then, the user of the iPhone would know his performance was degraded, and why; and he could make the decision whether the degradation of performance was worth the cost of replacing the battery.

robin huber said:

No good deed goes unpunished. If only Apple had published their intention up front, this nonsense could have been avoided.

Completely agree. There will always be lawsuits, but by not notifying people they caused a lot of confusion and speculation - even amongst Apple Store employees. As a result, people could legitimately claim Apple did it to drive sales.

The problem with Apple's good deed was it caused problems because people didn't know or understand what was going on. If we’re honest, how does the average consumer know if Apple cut performance to protect people from inadvertent shutdowns, or whether they did it to drive sales and the shutdown rationale was an excuse they came up with after the fact? It comes down to your opinion of Apple and whether you trust them or not. Personally, I do, but I wish they had been clear about what they were doing.