Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Responds to U.S. Class Action Lawsuit Over Delayed Siri Features
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple's defense has no legs to stand on. They overpromised in the commercial, under-delivered at launch and they still under-deliver on their Apple Intelligence new version of Siri to this day. There have been ZERO updates on this new Siri since launch. Why is Apple so big (with so many resources and cash) yet so incompetent when it comes to AI?
Everything Apple said is true. The commercial clearly stated that not everything would be available right away. Updated Siri was not the only AI feature.
And their problems with AI have been pretty public. They put the wrong people in charge of it and that actually set them back.
I've been saying since very early on that nothing would come of any of these lawsuits.
Get em for all their worth. Traded in a 14 Pro Max for a lot of features I did not receive. What a waste.
Apple created and ran ads specifically for this particular feature for the iPhone 16 Pro and still hasn't delivered that feature but thinks that isn't false advertising?
The reality distortion field is in full effect in Cupertino.
The reality distortion field is in full effect in Cupertino.
So Apple announces AI coming to iPhone in June 2024, releases the iPhone 16 in September 2024, advertises the heck out of AI on the iPhone, then 6 months after the iPhone 16 release (almost 9 months after AI announcement) in March 2025 Apple says AI isn't coming for awhile, AND AS OF TODAY this AI stuff is promised in March/April 2026?!
Yea, Apple should be sued big time.
Yea, Apple should be sued big time.
Cook would rather garner more bad publicity surrounding AI than just admit they didn’t deliver what was promised and issue refunds.
Ha! He is! My bad @dannyyankou. 😂@dannyyankou is technically right that it won’t be coming out on the second Tuesday of next week.
Upgraded to my first device that can handle Apple Intelligence last week. It is super disappointing and I cheer on this lawsuit. GenMoji works maybe 1 out of 10 prompts and even after that the results are underwhelming or not what I asked for. The Messages and email summarizes seem pointless and I turned them off entirely after 2 days. It's no wonder Apple Corp is hemorrhaging AI staff; It's such a weak product that I wouldn't want to be associated with it either.
Why would they make ads demonstrating a better Siri if it wasn't to entice people to buy the new iPhone?
The ads clearly stated that the features were not all available yet and would be rolled out at some point in the future. There is certainly cause for complaints and disappointment, but not legal action.
If that's the case, why did they take down the ad from their youtube page instead of continuing to run these ads and new ads along with the iPhone 17 lineup with the same disclaimer?
So I read Apple's brief to dismiss. I'm pretty sure several of the complaints will be thrown out, but not necessarily all.
Plaintiff's case seems weak on specificity of the "what", "when" and "where" on the reliance on Apple's marketing. It's very general. Apple's defense seems to be also that 18 out of 20 Apple Intelligence features were delivered.
I asked ChatGPT to analyse the the brief:
Here’s a plain-English summary of Apple’s “Motion to Dismiss” in Landsheft v. Apple (over delayed Siri / “Apple Intelligence” features):
Additionally, Apple points out that:
Plaintiff's case seems weak on specificity of the "what", "when" and "where" on the reliance on Apple's marketing. It's very general. Apple's defense seems to be also that 18 out of 20 Apple Intelligence features were delivered.
I asked ChatGPT to analyse the the brief:
Here’s a plain-English summary of Apple’s “Motion to Dismiss” in Landsheft v. Apple (over delayed Siri / “Apple Intelligence” features):
What the case is about (per Apple’s brief)
- Apple announced a suite of new AI / intelligence features for iPhones (called “Apple Intelligence”).
- Many features were delivered. But two Siri features (“Personal Context Awareness” and “In-App Actions”) were delayed beyond the timeframe some purchasers allegedly expected.
- The plaintiffs (69 individuals) say: they bought iPhone 16 devices expecting all features would arrive promptly. If they had known about the delay, they say, they might not have bought or would have paid less.
- The plaintiffs bring multiple claims: consumer protection statutes (in California and other states), fraud, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, etc.
Key legal arguments by Apple for dismissal
Apple argues that the complaint is legally insufficient in several major respects. Here are the core arguments:| Issue | Apple’s Argument | Why Apple says it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Reliance / causation | Plaintiffs must show that they specifically relied on a misstatement by Apple when deciding to buy. | The complaint uses vague, generic references to “advertising” or “marketing” and doesn’t identify which statements, when they saw them, where, or how they influenced them. Apple says that fails the required legal standard. |
| Equitable jurisdiction | Some claims ask for restitution (i.e. returning money). | Apple says plaintiffs have adequate remedies under damages law, so equity claims should be dismissed. |
| Consumer protection claims (UCL, FAL, etc.) | The plaintiffs must show Apple acted “unlawfully” or “unfairly.” | Apple argues plaintiffs don’t sufficiently allege that Apple’s conduct meets those criteria under the statutes. |
| Express warranty | Plaintiffs must show a specific warranty was breached and must provide pre-suit notice. | Apple contends no such warranty is properly pleaded nor was notice given. |
| Implied warranty | Plaintiffs must allege the product was unfit for its ordinary purpose (i.e. “merchantability”). | The complaint does not plead that iPhone 16 is unfit — the devices functioned and were used, and the only complaint is delay in two features. |
| Negligent misrepresentation | Some plaintiffs allege Apple negligently misrepresented feature timing. | Apple responds that the “economic loss rule” bars such a claim (i.e. misuse of tort claim when contract/damage context is applicable). |
| Breach of contract | Plaintiffs must allege a contractual promise and a breach. | Apple says the complaint fails to allege a binding contract promising the delayed features in a certain timeframe. |
| Quasi-contract / unjust enrichment | Plaintiffs ask for recovery under theories of fairness. | Apple contends that where a adequate legal remedy or contract claim exists, quasi-contract claims are improper. |
- The rollout of features was always planned as “rolling” and not all at once.
- Plaintiffs still received many of the advertised features.
- The alleged delay is limited to two features, not the whole suite.
- The complaint’s allegations are too vague and conclusory to satisfy pleading standards (especially for fraud claims, which have stricter rules).
- Choice of law issues (which state’s law applies) may require further factual development, so Apple argues the court should reserve that until later if the case survives dismissal.
What Apple asks the court to do
Apple requests that the entire complaint be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:- Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim)
- Rule 9(b) (heightened pleading requirement for fraud)
Plaintiffs’ likely counterarguments and strengths
- Reliance & specificity
- Plaintiffs will argue they did rely on Apple’s marketing or statements about timing of features when purchasing iPhone 16.
- They may present specific advertisements or statements (e.g. the Bella Ramsey ad in September 2024) that mentioned the new intelligence features arriving over time, but which plaintiffs interpreted as implying a tighter schedule. Apple even notes some plaintiffs refer to that ad in its brief.
- They may argue that Apple’s own descriptions and promises, or the developer conference (WWDC) pitch, created expectations about rollout timing. [One of the strongest points]
- Delay is material
- They could claim that timing of the two delayed features was a material selling point, not a trivial detail — thus misrepresentations about timing could be significant to buyer decisions. [One of the strongest points]
- The argument would assert that consumers value receiving all advertised features promptly, not just eventually.
- No functional defect, but expectation of delivery
- Plaintiffs might distinguish this from a product defect case: their claim is not that the iPhones don’t work, but that promised capabilities (Siri features) were delayed.
- Their theory is more about fraudulent delay / misrepresentation than a defect.
- Restitution / equitable claims
- Plaintiffs may argue equity claims (e.g. UCL’s restitution, unjust enrichment) are needed because damages might be hard to measure exactly (how much value lost by delay).
- They could contend restitution is appropriate even if damages claims exist, depending on statutory frameworks of states.
- Breach of warranty / contract
- Plaintiffs might assert that Apple’s marketing or feature announcements constitute express warranties or promises.
- They may claim there was a contract between Apple and consumers or that the terms offered implied a warranty that new features would arrive in a certain timeframe.
- Negligent misrepresentation
- Plaintiffs may argue Apple owed a duty to make truthful statements about timing since consumers rely on such statements in product marketing.
- They might try to rebut Apple’s invocation of the “economic loss rule” by emphasizing hybrid aspects of software and hardware, or that misrepresentation is independent of mere product performance.
- Choice of law / class claims
- Plaintiffs will likely argue that Apple’s choice-of-law clauses (e.g. in iOS License Agreements pointing to California law) are not valid for all claims or for non-contract claims.
- They may assert that courts should let class claims under various states’ laws proceed (or at least survive a motion to dismiss) until fuller record (discovery) develops.
Likely claim survivability
Not all claims are equally strong. Here’s how they might fare if the case proceeds:- Fraud / misrepresentation claims: These face a high bar (Rule 9(b) standard). Unless plaintiffs can point to specific statements and show reliance, this is weak. [The plaintiff's lacks a lot of specificity here]
- Contract / warranty claims: If plaintiffs can identify a clear promise or warranty tied to the delayed features and establish that became part of their purchase agreement, these might survive.
- Equitable claims (restitution, unjust enrichment, UCL restitution prong): These may survive in part, especially if the court finds damages inadequate or if plaintiffs can show Apple was unjustly enriched.
- Consumer protection claims under state statutes (UCL, FAL, CLRA): Depending on how well plaintiffs show misrepresentation, unfairness, or causation, some state law claims might survive.
- Negligent misrepresentation: This is more vulnerable due to the economic loss doctrine in many jurisdictions, but a court might allow it if plaintiffs frame it carefully or apply jurisdiction where that doctrine is limited. [I think the plaintiffs face an uphill battle here in California]
No one forces you to buy through the carrier, that's an individual choice. That is why most recommend to purchse with no lock and directly from Apple.
While it's true that no one forces anyone to buy from a carrier, the carriers offer specific deals (upgrade to the newest iphone for free! ... but you can only use our cell phone service if you do that).
The deal itself of nabbing the next device for free is decent. I personally hate the idea, because I'd rather be able to switch to a different service, if I don't like the service I have at the moment.
I'm getting ready to switch my cell phone service as we speak.
Even with the prospect of gaining a new device for "free," there are still strings attached to those deals. And I hate that.
That was part of an overall package of functionality that was delayed, and I stand by my original opinion.
So...why did they take down the ad from their youtube page instead of continuing to run these ads and new ads along with the iPhone 17 lineup with the same disclaimer?
We regret to inform you, you're wrong about the upgrade reasons because I'm one of those people. Upgraded from a 14 Pro to a 16 Pro specifically for Personal Context. Literally no other feature mattered to me. Everything else on the 14 Pro was excellent for me.
I'm not even exaggerating; Camera control? don't use it. Action button is just for my vibrate and ring modes. USB C? I only charge via magsafe.