I don’t believe the plaintiffs have to answer your hypothetical. Either reason to upgrade—slow performance or sudden shut downs—could be remedied with a new battery, something that Apple was hesitant to recommend. Instead, Apple concealed the issue—perhaps even an engineering issue. The result is the same, the customer was led to believe that a new phone was the best option.
You so sure about this?
Let's have a look at just a smattering of the lawsuits, taking their Pleliminary Statement's, Nature of Action's, Summaries etc. (the basic synopsis of the case):
Taylor vs. Apple (Alabama)
1. This case is about Apple’s scheme to slow down, or “throttle,” the performance of certain iPhone models, including the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus models (“Legacy iPhones”).
(No mention of being forced to buy/denied the right to buy, a battery)
Liebermann et al. v. Apple (California)
4. Specifically, unbeknownst to Device users, updated versions of Apple’s iOS operating system were designed to deliberately slow the processor (“CPU”) speed of the Devices as their lithium-ion battery ages. This practice misleads users to believe that their Device is slow and operates poorly due to reduced processing performance and that the Device needs to be replaced, when, in reality, there may simply be a deficiency in battery power. As a result, Plaintiffs and many other Device owners have prematurely upgraded their Devices rather than taking the far less expensive step of replacing the phone’s lithium-ion battery.
(Notice here there again there is no position about obtaining a battery)
Schroeder v. Apple (Indiana)
1. This is a class action seeking injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant Apple Inc.’s unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone versions prior to the iPhone 8 (the “Legacy Devices”) to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of the Legacy Devices. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored—by as much as 70 percent—if affected individuals simply replaced the phone’s lithium-ion battery. Replacing the battery at an Apple store costs approximately $79. The cost of the new iPhone X is over $1,000.
2. Batteries “wear” over time. The lithium-ion battery used by Apple slowly diminishes its ability to hold a charge with time and use. However, normal lithium-ion battery wear does not reduce performance; a weakening battery has no effect on performance unless there is software that links the two. And that is precisely what Apple did.
(This case will fail on it's face given this statement - it is factually and technically incorrect - can't argue with physics and it's impedance that's at play and that affects ALL Li-Ion cellphone batteries from EVERY SINGLE company)
Sullivan-Stefanou et al. v. Apple (Ohio)
2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”) engaged in deceptive trade practices and false advertising in violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, §4165.01 et seq.; and engaged in common law fraud by failing to disclose to owners of the iPhones 6 and 7 that the iOS 10 and iOS 11 Updates significantly and negatively interfere with their phones’ performance. Rather, Apple touted the increased phone performance that would result from the Updates.
3. Apple has since admitted that through the iOS 10 and iOS 11 Updates, Apple deliberately prevents chips in the iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 from reaching their full processing power. The result is that instead of enhancing the performance of the iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 as Apple represented, the iOS 10 and iOS 11 Updates were designed to limit the devices’ performance in certain circumstances.
4. Having updated their phones at Apple’s instruction, Plaintiffs and the putative Class must either continue using devices with significant lag time that interferes with their ordinary use, or purchase new phones for hundreds of dollars, or now they can purchase a new battery.
(Now, here's one that's going to have to provide "Apple's Instruction" if the litigants should prevail. Notice again how there's no statement that they were unable to purchase a battery either.
That's just four random one's I picked up on.
And, now here's the kicker, there's a big difference between the hardware (the battery) and the software (the operating system). All this started with updates to iOS 10 which every single person affected agreed to install and 100% agreed to ALL the terms inside the EULA. Oh, but wait, I hear you ask, who reads the EULA these days? Doesn't matter - numerous cases have already upheld the EULA as enforceable IF the users has performed an action that states they have 'read' the EULA before proceeding.
But wait - there is a light at the end of a tunnel...
..in states such as California. Unsure of other states, but CA has an interesting nugget in it's lawbooks that might be of value: the concept of 'I had no choice'.
This concept was tested in Bragg v Linden Research, Inc (2007) where the courts upheld that the plaintiff had no choice (in this case) due to Second-Life's (then) position as 'the only game in town'. It may be possible to apply that to the OS updates - or it may not be.
He won.
I present it here to demonstrate that I'm trying to find angles in which the case might succeed, based upon the eventual jurisdiction.
That said, Apple can quite easily point to other manufacturers dealing with the same issue where and saying 'we're not the only ones' (which is true) and that they have the right to handle the battery the best way forward. Granted, that's a big of a bombastic statement, but we allow them to dictate EVERYTHING else we know and 'love' in Apple (more-so with the 'Walled Garden',) so why not this.
