Apple may have to cough up $1bn to Brits in latest iPhone Batterygate claim

12 views
Skip to first unread message

NewsKrawler

unread,
Jun 29, 2022, 4:32:47 AMJun 29
to
https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/17/apple_may_face_another_expensive/
Apple may have to cough up $1bn to Brits in latest iPhone Batterygate claim
Lawsuit took its time, just like your older iOS handset.

Another day, another legal claim against Apple for deliberately throttling
the performance of its iPhones to save battery power.

This latest case was brought by Justin Gutmann, who has asked the UK's
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to approve a collective action that could
allow as many as 25 million Brits to claim compensation from the American
technology giant. He claims the iGiant secretly degraded their smartphones'
performance to make the battery power last longer.

Apple may therefore have to cough up an eye-popping 768 million pounds (927
million dollars), Gutmann's lawyers estimated, Bloomberg first reported
this week.

Gutmann, a market researcher, is unhappy that the iPhone maker emitted an
iOS update that would throttle the execution of software on handsets.
According to Apple back in 2017 around the time this Batterygate saga
unfolded, the throttling was to ensure the batteries, particularly worn-out
ones with lower capacity, wouldn't be drained by apps at a rate that would
cause devices to unexpectedly power off.

We can quite imagine people rushing out to upgrade their phones after
experiencing a slowdown, too, conveniently enough for Apple.

The iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus and iPhone X
models were all affected by this change, it was claimed this week.
(June 29th, 2022)

"Instead of doing the honourable and legal thing by their customers and
offering a free replacement, repair service or compensation, Apple instead
misled people by concealing a tool in software updates that slowed their
devices by up to 58 percent," he told The Guardian.

"I'm launching this case so that millions of iPhone users across the UK
will receive redress for the harm suffered by Apple's actions. If this case
is successful, I hope dominant companies will re-evaluate their business
models and refrain from this kind of conduct."

If the CAT approves Gutmann's case, Apple will face yet another
battle-throttling lawsuit. The biz has already been sued by folks and
attorneys general representing different states in the US, as well as a
consumer-rights group in Italy. Apple paid $113 million and over $310
million to settle claims.

The Register has asked Cupertino for comment.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jul 1, 2022, 11:59:40 AMJul 1
to
nospam wrote:

>>> the claim it was to force future sales is absurd. it actually *reduced*
>>> the need for future sales, because apple was extending the useful life
>>> of the phone.
>>
>> You are welcome to your opinion.
>
> it's not an opinion.

Normal adult opinions are supposed to be based on the actual FACTS, nospam.

The facts are that Apple did it secretly and lied about it afterward,
and then changed the release notes to fit the lies & then got caught.

The facts are that Apple lost about a billion dollars in court cases, where
it's more important to note that Apple also lost the criminal cases, where
there's no way for Apple to buy their way out of the admission of guilt.

Given that a billion dollars a year is nothing to a company like Apple,
to Apple, getting caught in these lies is just a part of doing business.

This new British case is just another billion dollars in fines to Apple.
--
Unfortunately, crime pays because nobody lies like Apple lies, and yet,
nobody has the benefit of such ungodly profits margins as does Apple.

notya...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 1, 2022, 4:43:55 PMJul 1
to
There are supposedly over 50M iPhones in the UK, but many will be old and damaged, failed out of warranty or superseded by newer models. A more interesting figure would be how much each participant in the class action might hope to get - maybe $100 each? How much is a 5yo second hand iPhone worth anyway?

wasbit

unread,
Jul 1, 2022, 6:38:20 PMJul 1
to
"notya...@gmail.com <notya...@gmail.com>" wrote in message
<news:9e300199-24df-4738...@googlegroups.com>...

> There are supposedly over 50M iPhones in the UK,
> but many will be old and damaged, failed out of warranty
> or superseded by newer models. A more interesting figure
> would be how much each participant in the class action
> might hope to get - maybe $100 each?
> How much is a 5yo second hand iPhone worth anyway?

I think in most class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs (and their counsel)
are those who win big - while the millions of injured individuals in the
class action are merely the sheep who bring those wolves into the meadow.

I kind of like class action lawsuits though, because they force deceitful
companies like AAPL to tell the truth for once, given they're under oath.

Companies as deceitful as AAPL is may not even then tell the truth if they
think they can get away with it - but at least some of the truth comes out.

Therefore, to me, the class action lawsuits allow the public to find out
about the deceit that these companies such as AAPL commit every single day.

In this case, AAPL harmed millions of people so it's only fair that they
pay the cost of doing that secretly and on purpose with willful ill intent.
--
Regards
wasbit

Alan

unread,
Jul 2, 2022, 1:31:44 PMJul 2
to
On 2022-07-01 09:00, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>>> the claim it was to force future sales is absurd. it actually *reduced*
>>>> the need for future sales, because apple was extending the useful life
>>>> of the phone.
>>>
>>> You are welcome to your opinion.
>>
>> it's not an opinion.
>
> Normal adult opinions are supposed to be based on the actual FACTS, nospam.
>
> The facts are that Apple did it secretly and lied about it afterward,
> and then changed the release notes to fit the lies & then got caught.

The facts are that Apple made a change to the OS to benefit people.

Developers make changes like that all the time without specifically
announcing the details.

>
> The facts are that Apple lost about a billion dollars in court cases,
> where it's more important to note that Apple also lost the criminal
> cases, where there's no way for Apple to buy their way out of the
> admission of guilt.

There was not a single "criminal case" in this matter, and Apple has
never admitted guilt to anything.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jul 2, 2022, 9:15:45 PMJul 2
to
nospam wrote:

>> I didn't have an apple phone till last year, so I don't know about
>> this, but I wonder; Did apple notify users they were throttling the
>> IOS in phones with crappy or old batteries? If they did notify,
>> then I don't see the problem, and professor arlen is straining at
>> gnats.
>
> what apple did (which is not what you describe or widely reported) was
> in the release notes. granted, nobody reads them, but it was disclosed.

Apple admitted to lying about the release notes, where what happened was
Apple secretly backdated them well after the fact, and even then, Apple's
"admission" of throttling was carefully yet rather brilliantly cleverly
worded to "look" like throttling phones to less than half improved speeds.

In the _criminal_ case, *Apple admitted to "knowingly and willingly"*
defrauding affected customers.

Apple paid the _criminal_ fine because in criminal court you can't buy your
way out of the admission of guilt like you can with civil cases.

That you iKooks are always unaware of the facts ceases to be shocking.

> most people never noticed any change in performance, and it took nearly
> a year until someone did.

Apple admitted in court that Apple support routinely told all customers who
complained that the new iOS release drastically slowed down their iPhones
to get a new iPhone (which millions of customers duly did because they did
exactly what Apple support told them to do when Apple support said nothing
was wrong.

That you iKooks are always unaware of the facts ceases to be shocking.

> what they *did* notice is the frequency of sudden unexpected shutdowns
> was much lower. that's a *lot* worse than a slight momentary change in
> performance.

What happened was benchmark reports were skewed by phones that had a new
battery. I am the person who broke the news to this very newsgroup in fact.

That you iKooks are always unaware of the facts ceases to be shocking.

>> If they didn't notify, but did it surreptitiously, with no
>> notification, then actually lied about it, that's a real
>> underhanded and shitty way of "serving" their customers. Even
>> iKooks wouldn't like to be shit on.
>
> they didn't lie about anything, although they could have explained it a
> bit better.

Apple admitted they lied in the _criminal_ case that Apple lost.

And everyone on the planet heard Tim Cook lie about the release notes.

That you iKooks are always unaware of the facts ceases to be shocking.

>> So, what actually happened back then?
>
> what happened was apple fixed the problem of unexpected sudden
> shutdowns due to aging batteries being unable to source peak demands by
> clipping only those peak demands.

What happened was Apple secretly _hid_ the problem, and Apple employees
weren't told to tell people to buy new batteries - so they told people to
buy new phones.

That you iKooks are always unaware of the facts ceases to be shocking.

> that is very different than an overall throttling, as is widely and
> incorrectly reported.

Apple blamed battery chemistry, which is preposterous since plenty of Apple
iPhones before and since don't have the problem so it's _not_ chemistry.

That you iKooks are always unaware of the facts ceases to be shocking.

> most users aren't interested in learning the full story and blew it out
> of proportion by feeding on linkbait headlines.

Apple paid for a Ford class aircraft carrier (completely with avionics) in
penalties and criminal fines for "knowingly and willfully" defrauding
customers, nospam - which is not something blown out of proportion.

Apple _secretly_ and knowingly drastically & cut the performance of
billions of iPhones to less than half of what people paid for, nospam.
--
It's no longer shocking how fantastically ignorant the low-IQ iKooks are.

Alan

unread,
Jul 2, 2022, 9:24:27 PMJul 2
to
On 2022-07-02 18:16, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> I didn't have an apple phone till last year, so I don't know about
>>> this, but I wonder; Did apple notify users they were throttling the
>>> IOS in phones with crappy or old batteries? If they did notify, then
>>> I don't see the problem, and professor arlen is straining at gnats.
>>
>> what apple did (which is not what you describe or widely reported) was
>> in the release notes. granted, nobody reads them, but it was disclosed.
>
> Apple admitted to lying about the release notes, where what happened was
> Apple secretly backdated them well after the fact, and even then, Apple's
> "admission" of throttling was carefully yet rather brilliantly cleverly
> worded to "look" like throttling phones to less than half improved speeds.
>
> In the _criminal_ case, *Apple admitted to "knowingly and willingly"*
> defrauding affected customers.

Why must you lie?

>
> Apple paid the _criminal_ fine because in criminal court you can't buy your
> way out of the admission of guilt like you can with civil cases.

There was no criminal case.

notya...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 3, 2022, 9:51:42 AMJul 3
to
On Sunday, 3 July 2022 at 02:15:45 UTC+1, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>

SNIP confusion between civil and criminal process

>
> Apple _secretly_ and knowingly drastically & cut the performance of
> billions of iPhones to less than half of what people paid for, nospam.

crApple sold billions of phones with batteries that did not have an infinite life, but then none of them do.

What they did do [yet again] was make then non-user removable and only serviceable by crApple, so they could cream the customer again when they needed replacing (typically three to five years depending on usage) - think pentalobe screws and phone crippled / disabled if opened by an independent repairer...

crApple eventually realised that most users would either tolerate the shorter time between charging or buy a new phone, and if they were unhappy with their iPhone because it went flat in under a day and cost $$$ to fit a $ new battery then they would likely buy another make.

So they traded off performance for battery endurance, but neither told their users nor gave them an option.

Samsung by contrast has an automatic power saving mode, which is fully documented, and can be user invoked [at varying levels] or over-ridden.

> --
> It's no longer shocking how fantastically ignorant the low-IQ iKooks are.

possibly true - knowledgeable techies rarely buy crApple, but still less ignorant than you.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Jul 4, 2022, 1:47:23 PMJul 4
to
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 at 02:24:24, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>> Apple paid the _criminal_ fine because in criminal court you can't buy your
>> way out of the admission of guilt like you can with civil cases.
>
> There was no criminal case.

You are an idiot because everyone else knows about the French criminal case
that Apple pleaded guilty to and paid the fine and publicly admitted guilt.

Look it up before you respond because otherwise you're just an idiot moron.

Alan

unread,
Jul 4, 2022, 1:58:55 PMJul 4
to
You look it up and present the evidence of your claim.

There was a SETTLEMENT before there was an actual case in a court of law.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jul 4, 2022, 2:01:32 PMJul 4
to
notya...@gmail.com wrote:

>> It's no longer shocking how fantastically ignorant the low-IQ iKooks are.
>
> possibly true - knowledgeable techies rarely buy crApple, but still less ignorant than you.

The problem with the iKooks is they deny what we all discussed years ago in
threads that they themselves had very much actively participated in.

For example, nospam denies there was a criminal case that Apple lost and
yet he was on all the threads where we discussed that French _criminal_
case at length (the criminal fine was paid to the Paris prosecutor's
office).

Another example is nospam repeatedly denies Apple throttled modems when
they realized the Qualcomm modem was significantly faster than the Intel
modem, even as he was on those threads where there must be hundreds of news
stories about.

To let you know why it matters, for years I never owned Apple products and
yet I was well aware of the Apple aficionados believing Apple's lies.

No big deal, until I started owning Apple products, and then when I joined
the Apple newsgroups, I found out _why_ the iKooks believed in Apple's
lies.

The reason isn't anything more than they're low-IQ people who have
absolutely zero formal education above high school (some not even that),
and, that's then coupled with their fundamental character flaw.

That character flaw, appropriately so, is that they have a very low self
esteem, where what makes them iKooks is they use Apple's bogus advertising
claims to bolster their own self opinion of their decision making process.

Hell, they'll _validate_ their choice in believing Apple's lies by
constantly saying that Apple's profits are ungodly - never once realizing
that no company can make those ungodly profit margins off an intelligent
consumer.

Likewise, iKooks brazenly _deny_ all facts about Apple they don't like.
That's a _lot_ of facts about Apple these iKooks deny day after day.

In this case, they _hate_ that Apple throttled iPhone 4G modems.
Worse, they _hate_ that Apple "failed" at making a competitive 5G modem.

So they _deny_ these facts.
Like flat earthers deny any photo showing the earth is kind of roundish.

Even worse, iKooks hate that Apple will be a _decade_ behind in 5G modem
technology when the two key Qualcomm patents expire in mid 2029 and 2030.

S they deny those facts.
That way, all facts about Apple simply don't exist to these low-IQ iKooks.

It's how they can maintain a completely imaginary belief system about
Apple's "supposed superiority" which they, themselves, use to bolster their
own self esteem (which is _why_ they're iKooks after all).

a. They're all of very low substandard well-below-normal IQ
b. As a result, _none_ of the iKooks has _any_ higher education
c. And, worse, their character flaw is they use their decision to
pay Apple ungodly profit margins as a way to bolster their
own opinion of their decision-making abilities.

--
To understand the iKooks explains _why_ there are these Apple/Windows and
Android/iOS crazy threads, where it's always the iKooks who own the low-IQ.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,
Jul 4, 2022, 3:36:12 PMJul 4
to
On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 18:58:44, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>> Look it up before you respond because otherwise you're just an idiot moron.
>
> You look it up and present the evidence of your claim.

My last advice for you is to REPEAT that you should stop acting like the
idiot moron that you are and just run a search for what only you don't know
and only you deny because there must be hundreds of reports about the
criminal case that Apple admitted guilt to publicly on their web site.
https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+pleads+guilty+to+french+criminal+case+throttling

Alan

unread,
Jul 4, 2022, 3:47:59 PMJul 4
to
Sorry, but if you can provide a Google search URL, then you could have
just as easily provided an actual cite that proves your claim.

That you didn't speaks louder than anything else you've written.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jul 7, 2022, 10:54:06 AMJul 7
to
nospam wrote:

>> So, I guess their newer software probably had a notification,
>> something like: " your system is running at .7 clock speed, because
>> the battery needs to be replaced".
>
> no, because that's not anywhere close to what happened.

Apple admitted to knowingly defrauding customers in the French _criminal_
case, which, if nospam is ignorant of, just proves how ignorant iKooks are
because we _discussed_ this French case on this very newsgroup for weeks!

Look it up as Apple only tells the truth when forced to do so under oath.

What's interesting is the iKooks own such a low intelligence that they
can't even comprehend that they _discussed_ this case for weeks on end, and
even now, years later, they remain blissfully unaware of the facts.

Apple admitted _criminal_ guilt.
Apple paid the _criminal_ fine.
Apple was forced to publicly admit criminal guilt for a month on their
French-language web site.

Anyone ignorant of these well known facts has no business refuting them.

> what happened was that only *peak* *demands* were clipped. everything
> else was unaffected. one example is apps might take slightly longer to
> launch (which is not going to be noticeable without a stopwatch).

I'm the one who broke the news of the throttling and I broke the news of
Apple's admission of criminal guilt (and the lesser admissions in the many
civil cases) to this very newsgroup which covered in detail what happened.

1. Apple power delivery design sucked in _some_ iPhones
2. Apple secretly "solved" that problem by fucking its customer
3. Apple also secretly changed the release notes well after the fact
4. And Tim Cook was caught in a very public lie about that secret change

Apple customers noticed instantly whenever a new release slows down their
phone, but in this case, what happened was someone on a benchmark group
noticed the slowdown instantly went away with a new battery.

Until then, Apple store personnel were telling millions of people they
needed a new phone, which is where Apple's sheer greed came in because
Apple _knew_ this (which is why Apple lost all the court cases).

The best evidence was presented in the French _criminal_ case where Apple
was forced to tell the truth for a month on the French Apple web site.

> how would *you* have solved the problem of unexpected sudden shutdowns?

Apple hid the problem until they couldn't. I would have told the truth.
Apple lied from the start about it. I would have told the truth.
Apple secretly throttled the iPhones. I would have replaced the battery.
Apple didn't tell its support personnel. I would have told them the truth.
Apple lied when they blamed battery chemistry. I would have told the truth.
Apple low R&D is why the power design stinks. I would have invested in R&D.
Apple charged people for new batteries. I would have made them free.
etc.

The good news is this is the classic case now in MBA teachings for how NOT
to treat your customer when you find a fundamental flaw in your product.

>> This seems like an honest approach, and most would like that. I'd
>> buy a new battery at an apple store, knowing it would fix the
>> problem for sure.
>
> there was no need to buy a new battery.

It's no longer shocking how _ignorant_ the iKooks like nospam always are.
--
What's no longer shocking is the low-IQ iKooks like nospam don't know
anything that EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS (because iKooks only read Apple ads).

Alan

unread,
Jul 7, 2022, 11:05:15 AMJul 7
to
On 2022-07-07 07:54, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> So, I guess their newer software probably had a notification,
>>> something like: " your system is running at .7 clock speed, because
>>> the battery needs to be replaced".
>>
>> no, because that's not anywhere close to what happened.
>
> Apple admitted to knowingly defrauding customers in the French _criminal_
> case, which, if nospam is ignorant of, just proves how ignorant iKooks
> are because we _discussed_ this French case on this very newsgroup for
> weeks!
>

Sorry but that's a falsehood.

> Look it up as Apple only tells the truth when forced to do so under oath.

False.

>
> What's interesting is the iKooks own such a low intelligence that they
> can't even comprehend that they _discussed_ this case for weeks on end, and
> even now, years later, they remain blissfully unaware of the facts.
>
> Apple admitted _criminal_ guilt.

False.

> Apple paid the _criminal_ fine.

False

> Apple was forced to publicly admit criminal guilt for a month on their
> French-language web site.

False.

nospam

unread,
Jul 7, 2022, 11:10:17 AMJul 7
to
In article <ta6s2b$1j28$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> 2. Apple secretly "solved" that problem by fucking its customer

that's one key reason why ios is so popular.

notya...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 7, 2022, 12:31:28 PMJul 7
to
Declining though, however that is as a result of their anti-competitive practices and very high margins / prices.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jul 7, 2022, 11:05:30 PMJul 7
to
nospam wrote:

> that's one key reason why ios is so popular.

Hi nospam,

All your self esteem comes from the advertising of Apple.

I used to think you iKooks simply lied about everything, but the fact that
we discussed these issues in huge threads and yet you don't remember a
single fact just bolsters my more recent opinion that you're just stupid.

However, lots of people are stupid and most are not iKooks.

The _reason_ you iKooks are iKooks is because of three things:
1. Your IQ is well below normal, and,
2. You have no education whatseover, but worse
3. *All your self esteem comes from the advertising of Apple*.

The fact is Apple paid the _criminal_ fine and published their guilt on the
Apple French web site for a month as part of the _criminal_ penalty for
knowingly and willfully defrauding its customers.

We discussed this at length, and you know that as the thread was huge.
The fact you forgot just means you're not lying - you're just stupid.

All of your ego is wrapped up in Apple advertisements because you have
_nothing_ in your life other than Apple to gloat about, nospam.

Alan

unread,
Jul 7, 2022, 11:12:46 PMJul 7
to
On 2022-07-07 20:05, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> that's one key reason why ios is so popular.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> All your self esteem comes from the advertising of Apple.
>
> I used to think you iKooks simply lied about everything, but the fact that
> we discussed these issues in huge threads and yet you don't remember a
> single fact just bolsters my more recent opinion that you're just stupid.
>
> However, lots of people are stupid and most are not iKooks.
>
> The _reason_ you iKooks are iKooks is because of three things:
> 1. Your IQ is well below normal, and, 2. You have no education
> whatseover, but worse
> 3. *All your self esteem comes from the advertising of Apple*.
>
> The fact is Apple paid the _criminal_ fine and published their guilt on the
> Apple French web site for a month as part of the _criminal_ penalty for
> knowingly and willfully defrauding its customers.

Those are not facts.

Apple paid a settlement to avoid charges being filed and there was not
admission of guilt.

notya...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 8, 2022, 7:17:16 AMJul 8
to
Indeed - the same as my paying the fixed penalty when my car got towed off (OK I was parked on doubled yellow lines), so no conviction.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages