`
`
`
`
`DEBORAH KRAVITZ (275661)
`dkravitz@kamberlaw.com
`KAMBERLAW, LLP
`401 Center Street, Suite 111
`Healdsburg, CA 95448
`Telephone: (707) 820-4247
`
`
`SCOTT A. KAMBER (pro hac vice to be filed)
`skamber@kamberlaw.com
`MICHAEL ASCHENBRENER (277114)
`masch@kamberlaw.com
`KAMBERLAW, LLC
`201 Milwaukee St, Suite 200
`Denver, CO 80246
`Telephone: (303) 222-0281
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and putative Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`BEST COMPANIES, INC., individually and on
`behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff files this Class Action Complaint for Damages and Equitable Relief
`
`against Apple Inc. (“Apple,” the “Company,” or “Defendant”) on behalf of Plaintiff Best
`
`Companies, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “BCI”) and all other non-natural persons (“NNPs”) in the United
`
`States who purchased, owned, or leased one or more of Apple’s Devices1 (the “Class” as defined
`
`below) for unlawful and unfair business practices. The allegations in this Complaint are based on
`
`information and belief.
`2.
`
`Starting in or about January 2017, Apple installed Updates on Apple Devices that
`
`“throttled” or reduced the speed at which the phones operate, purportedly in order to extend the
`
`life of the Apple Device batteries.
`3.
`
`Apple did so by issuing “Updates” (10.2.1 and 11.2) to the Devices that
`
`purposefully degraded performance in order to have the batteries draw less power to run the
`
`Devices. Apple did not inform NNPs that the Updates would degrade phone performance.
`4.
`
`The throttling of Devices that Apple introduced via periodic Updates to its iOS
`
`device software was intended to address a defect in the design of the Devices: the fact that the
`
`Devices’ batteries lacked the capacity and power delivery to keep up with the demands placed
`
`upon them by Apple’s hardware and software (the “Defect”).
`5.
`
`On December 20, 2017, Apple tacitly admitted that the Updates intentionally
`
`slowed the Devices (the “Admission”) stating, in relevant part:
`Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which includes overall
`performance and prolonging the life of their devices. Lithium-ion batteries
`become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions,
`have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device
`unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components.
`Last year we released a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone SE to smooth
`out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the device from
`unexpectedly shutting down during these conditions. We’ve now extended that
`feature to iPhone 7, with iOS 11.2, and plan to add support for other products in
`the future.2
`
`1 As used herein, the term “Devices” means the following products designed and marketed by
`Apple for sale: the iPhone SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and
`the iPhone 7 Plus.
`2 Shara Tibiken, “Apple admits slowing older iPhones, says it’s to prevent battery issues.” C/Net
`(Dec. 20, 2017), available at https://cnet.co/2GIXIEn (visited Oct. 5, 2020).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`
`6.
`On December 28, 2017, Apple issued an “Apology” of sorts:
`iOS 10.2.1 (released January 2017) includes updates for previous models of
`iPhone to prevent them from unexpectedly shutting down. This includes a feature
`for iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, and iPhone SE to
`dynamically manage the instantaneous performance peaks, only when needed,
`to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down. This capability was
`also extended to iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus with iOS 11.2, and we will
`continue improving our power management feature in the future. This feature’s
`only intent is to prevent unexpected shutdowns so that the iPhone can still be
`used.
`This power management works by looking at a combination of the device
`temperature, battery state of charge, and battery impedance. Only if these
`variables require it, iOS will dynamically manage the maximum performance of
`some system components, such as the CPU and GPU, in order to prevent
`unexpected shutdowns. As a result, the device workloads will self-balance,
`allowing a smoother distribution of system tasks, rather than larger, quick spikes
`of performance all at once. In some cases, a user may not notice any differences in
`daily device performance. The level of perceived change depends on how much
`power management is required for a particular device.
`In cases that require more extreme forms of this power management, the user may
`notice effects such as:
`• Longer app launch times
`• Lower frame rates while scrolling
`• Backlight dimming (which can be overridden in Control Center)
`• Lower speaker volume by up to -3dB
`• Gradual frame rate reductions in some apps
`• During the most extreme cases, the camera flash will be disabled as visible
`in the camera UI
`• Apps refreshing in background may require reloading upon launch.3
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff was harmed by Apple’s throttling of the Devices because Apple intruded
`
`upon Plaintiff’s purchased iPhones, in violation of state and federal law.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`As set forth herein, this Court has general jurisdiction over Apple and original
`
`jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.
`9.
`
`The Court has federal question subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 2 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331, because Plaintiff alleges that Apple violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18
`
`3 Apple, iPhone and Battery Performance, Understand iPhone performance and its relation to your
`battery (Dec. 31, 2017), available at https://bit.ly/3nmsRP5 (visited Oct. 5, 2020).
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`2
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.
`10.
`
`This Court also has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
`
`Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), because this is a class action in which the matter in
`
`controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, and Apple is a citizen of a State different from that of
`
`at least one Class member.
`11.
`
`This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because all claims alleged herein form part of the same case or controversy.
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) through (d) because
`
`Apple’s principal place of business is located in this District and substantial parts of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the District. Venue is also proper in this Court
`
`because Apple is located here, the causes of action arose here, and as Apple has admitted, the
`
`Devices at issue herein have always been designed by Apple in this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Plaintiff BCI is a business incorporated/organized in the State of Oklahoma, with
`
`A.
`13.
`
`its primary place of business located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
`14.
`
`Plaintiff acquired at least 10 iPhone models 6, 6 Plus, 7, or 7 Plus during the period
`
`September 2014 through March 2017. These phones were purchased through either its carrier,
`
`AT&T, or the Apple Store.
`15.
`
`Prior to the above Device purchases, Plaintiff did not know, nor could it have
`
`known through reasonable diligence, of the Defect in the Devices that it purchased.
`16.
`
`Plaintiff instructed its employees to update their software regularly and provided
`
`assistance to its employees as needed. All phones owned by BCI downloaded and installed iOS
`
`10.2.1 on the Devices during the first quarter of 2017.
`17.
`
`Based upon a BCI officer’s conversations with employee users of the purchased
`
`iPhones identified above, a degradation of performance of these devices occurred after the Update
`
`to iOS 10.2.1.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`3
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Apple intruded upon Plaintiff’s Devices, in violation of state and federal law when
`
`it secretly Updated the Devices to reduce performance.
`B.
`19.
`
`Defendant and Its Relevant Corporate Structure
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”), is a corporation that was created under the laws of the State
`
`of California, and has its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple is the world’s
`
`largest information technology company by revenue and the world’s third largest mobile phone
`
`developer. There are currently over one billion Apple products in active use worldwide.
`20.
`
`Throughout the events at issue here, Apple has operated through its directors,
`
`officers, employees and agents, and each such person acted within the course and scope of such
`
`agency, representation or employment and was acting with the consent, permission and
`
`authorization of Apple.
`
`CHOICE OF LAW: DESIGNED BY APPLE IN CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
`21.
`
`By using their Devices or downloading a software update, Device users are
`
`presented with the iOS Software License Agreement. There are separate Software License
`
`Agreements for each version of iOS software including: iPhone iOS 3.1, iOS 4.1, iOS 5.0, iOS
`
`5.1, iOS 6.0, iOS 7.0, iOS 8.0, iOS 8.1, iOS 9.0, iOS 9.1, iOS 10, iOS 11, and iOS 11.2.The
`
`agreements do not differ in material terms, and provide that California law governs the
`
`agreements:
`Controlling Law and Severability. This License will be governed by and
`construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, excluding its
`conflict of law principles. This License shall not be governed by the United
`Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods the
`application or which is expressly excluded. If you are a consumer based in the
`United Kingdom, this License will be governed by the laws of the jurisdiction of
`your residence. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any
`provision, or portion thereof, to be unenforceable, the remainder of this License
`shall continue in full force and effect.
`22.
`
`To the extent they apply, the iOS Software Licensing Agreements are effective at
`
`the point of sale—as soon as the customers turn on their Devices—and are thus part of the benefit
`
`of the purchasers’ bargain. Without iOS, for which there is a purported licensing agreement, the
`
`Devices simply do not work.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`4
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Apple elected to have California law govern all claims and disputes concerning the
`
`common software required to operate all of the Devices at issue in this lawsuit. Accordingly, the
`
`application of California law to all of the class members’ claims is fair, appropriate, and an
`
`election affirmatively made by Apple consistent in its Agreements.
`24.
`
`By using their Devices, purchasers are told that they agree to be bound by
`
`California law as purchasers must run Apple’s proprietary iOS to use their Devices.
`25.
`
`Beyond Apple’s election of California law to govern the claims described herein,
`
`the State of California has a significant interest in regulating the conduct of businesses operating
`
`within its borders. California, which seeks to protect the rights and interests of California and all
`
`residents and citizens of the United States against a company headquartered and doing business in
`
`California, has a greater interest in the claims of Plaintiff and class members than any other state
`
`or country and is most intimately concerned with the claims and outcome of this litigation.
`26.
`
`The principal place of business of Apple, located at 1 Apple Park Way (formerly 1
`
`Infinite Loop) in Cupertino, California, is the “nerve center” of its business activities—the place
`
`where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities, including
`
`its marketing, software development, and major policy, financial, and legal decisions. As admitted
`
`by Apple in its Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended September 28, 2019 (the “2019 Form 10-
`
`K”), “most of the Company’s key personnel” are located in Silicon Valley, California.
`27.
`
`Indeed, Apple’s Devices proudly display that they were “designed by Apple in
`
`California.”
`28.
`
`Apple’s response to the allegations herein, and corporate decisions surrounding
`
`such response, were made from and in California.
`29.
`
`Apple’s breaches of duty to Plaintiff and the Class emanated from California, and
`
`the Devices at issue herein were designed and tested in California.
`30.
`
`Application of California law with respect to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ claims
`
`is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair because California has a state interest in the claims of
`
`the Plaintiff and the Class based upon Apple’s significant and ongoing contacts with California.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`5
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Under California’s choice of law principles, which are applicable to this action, the
`
`common law of California applies to the common law claims of all class members. Additionally,
`
`given California’s significant interest in regulating the conduct of businesses operating within its
`
`borders, California’s consumer protection laws may be applied to non-resident Plaintiff and class
`
`members.
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`32.
`
`On January 23, 2017, Apple issued a press release announcing the release of iOS
`
`10.2.1. Shortly thereafter, Apple caused the issuance of a notification to appear on the Devices
`
`advising that iOS 10.2.1 was available for installation. As alleged herein, iOS 10.2.1 was designed
`
`by Apple to throttle the Devices, contrary to what Apple stated about the update.
`33.
`
`Apple represented as follows concerning the update on the Devices:
`
`34.
`
`On December 2, 2017, Apple announced the release of iOS 11.2.0. Shortly
`
`thereafter, Apple caused the issuance of a notification to appear on the Devices advising that iOS
`
`11.2.0 was available for installation. Apple represented as follows concerning the update:
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`6
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`35.
`36.
`
`As alleged herein, iOS 11.2.0 was another update designed to throttle the Devices.
`
`Just weeks after the issuance of iOS 11.2.0, Apple was forced to issue the
`
`Admission, followed eight days later by the Apology.
`A.
`
`Apple Compounded the Defect by Stressing Device Batteries with Power-
`
`Hungry Software.
`1.
`iOS Updates
`Apple’s battery designs were inadequate because they could not handle the power
`
`37.
`
`demands of the software Apple mandated users to run.
`38. When Apple releases a new operating system, it pushes the software directly to the
`
`customer’s device through a red signal with a number in it that notifies users of the existence of an
`
`available “software update.”
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`7
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`39. Within minutes, device owners can click on the prompt and download the new
`
`operating system.
`40.
`
`It is very difficult, if not impossible, for typical Apple owners to avoid
`
`downloading an iOS update. As one site explains:
`The bad news is there’s no easy way to stop iOS from repeatedly throwing this
`alert at you....
`To encourage people to get on the latest version of iOS, Apple implemented a
`feature called Automatic Downloads. This download updates in the background,
`and once it is downloaded, you are pushed to install it. Apple typically installs the
`software update at night when the iPhone, or iPad, is plugged in and charging.4
`
`41.
`
` Turning off the updates and the daily push notifications requires users to delve
`
`deep into their settings or to forgo WiFi, which ordinary customers would not do.5
`
`
`4 Lucy Hattersley, “How to Stop iOS Nagging You to Update to the Latest Version,” MacWorld
`(July 6, 2016), (available at https://bit.ly/30DLT9J).
`5 Hattersly, How to Stop iOS Nagging You, supra.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`8
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`B.
`42.
`
`The Release of iOS Was Secretly Designed to Camouflage the Defect
`
`In the Fall of 2016, iPhone users reported increasing occurrences of sudden
`
`shutdowns of iPhones 5 and 6 running versions of iOS 10 software, including when their devices
`
`indicated that battery life was still at or above 30%.6 Even the inventor of the iPod, Tony Fadell,
`
`voiced concern about this problem, commenting that the battery on his own iPhone kept shutting
`
`down despite having a significant amount of charge left in it: “It’s happening to me every other
`
`day-especially while using the mapping app. Have to always carry an external battery to revive it”7
`
`and “Issue with battery/shutdown algorithms?!”8
`43.
`
`As Apple was aware, and confirmed with the diagnostic information it obtained, the
`
`shutdown problem was the foreseeable consequence of a serious Defect in Apple’s iPhones. The
`
`speed for which Apple’s products are known and marketed to purchasers comes from powerful
`
`processing units which are supposed to perform calculations and render graphics on its
`
`smartphones at top speeds. As these processing units become faster and more powerful, however,
`
`they also require more power from the phone’s battery.
`44.
`A further complication is that the resistance of lithium-ion batteries used in iPhones
`
`increases as the cells age, resulting in both a reduction in overall battery capacity and a reduction
`
`in the battery’s ability to produce peak power output.9
`45.
`
`The amount of power that the processing unit requires during its daily operation
`
`varies: sometimes very little; sometimes a great deal; and the battery should be designed and
`
`capable of producing enough peak power to keep pace with even the processor’s highest demands.
`
`A battery and processor must be designed such that even as the battery ages and loses
`
`performance, it will still be capable of meeting the processor’s peak power demands for years to
`
`come.
`
`
`6 Apple Discussion Thread, https://discussions.apple.com/message/30989226?start=165&tstart=0
`(last visited Oct. 5, 2020).
`7 Tony Fadell Twitter Comment, (Nov. 30, 2016),
`https://twitter.com/tfadell/status/804215290871607296.
`8 Tony Fadell Twitter Comment, (Nov. 30, 2016),
`https://twitter.com/tfadell/status/804232051595640833.
`9 Apple, iPhone Battery and Performance, https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208387 (June 15,
`2018) (last visited Oct. 5, 2020).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`9
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Electronics manufacturers like Apple are aware of this fact and thus must design
`
`batteries to be more powerful than they need to be so that as they grow weaker, they still have the
`
`ability to meet the processor’s peak power demands.
`47.
`
`Apple’s iPhone 6, for example, uses Apple’s proprietary A8 System on a Chip
`
`(“SoC”) as its processor. This processor has low-power cores and high-power cores. The low
`
`power cores perform most of the day-to-day functions of the iPhone, and the high-power cores
`
`handle more graphically intensive activities such as gaming, recording and editing video, running
`
`certain applications at other times.10
`48. When the high-power cores are active, they can draw peak power from the battery,
`
`which the battery should be capable of meeting for the lifetime of the device.11 But when the
`
`battery ages and is unable to deliver the peak power demanded by the device’s processor, the
`
`device switches off and will not turn on again until the device is connected to a charger.
`49.
`
`The shutdown problem iPhone users were experiencing in Fall 2016 thus resulted
`
`from a significant Defect: the battery was not designed with enough power to meet the peak
`
`demands of the phone’s processor as the battery aged. The result was that iPhones seemed to
`
`operate as designed when new, but as early as a few days or months, began to cease functioning,
`
`i.e., switching off at random intervals, when the iPhone processor required too much power of its
`
`flagging iPhone battery.
`50.
`
`On January 23, 2017, Apple released iOS 10.2.1 as a seemingly routine update of
`
`its operating system.
`51.
`
`The alert to download iOS 10.2.1 stated that the update included “bug fixes” and
`
`improvements in device security. A depiction of the original iOS 10.2.1 notification on an iPhone
`
`is set forth below:
`
`
`10 See, e.g., Mike Wuerthele, “‘A11 Fusion’ in iPhone X appears to be a six core processor,
`according to iOS 11 leak,” Apple Insider (Sept. 10, 2017),
`https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/09/10/a11-fusion-in-iphone-x-appears-to-be-a-six-core-
`processor-according-to-ios-11-leak; Ryan Smith, “Analyzing Apple’s A8 SoC: PowerVR GX6450
`& More,” AnandTech (Sept. 10, 2014), https://www.anandtech.com/show/8514/analyzing-apples-
`a-soc-gx6650-more.
`11 Reddit Thread, PSA: iPhone slow: Try replacing your battery!
`https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/7inu45/psa_iphone_slow_try_replacing_your_battery/
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`10
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Sometime in February 2017, Apple added to its “Read Me” notes the following
`
`statement to be displayed on users’ iPhones with the software upgrade: iOS 10.2.1 “also improves
`
`power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.”12
`53.
`
`On or about February 23, 2017, Apple issued a statement that “[w]ith iOS 10.2.1,
`
`Apple made improvements to reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of
`
`users were experiencing with their iPhone.”13
`54.
`
`Throughout 2017, however, Apple failed to inform customers that the “fix” to the
`
`shutdown problem in iOS 10.2.1 came with a significant – and undisclosed – tradeoff: the update
`
`artificially slowed down the processors in Apple’s Devices. The software change Apple introduced
`
`with iOS 10.2.1 concerns the “powerd” system, short for “power daemon,” which controls CPU
`
`and GPU speed and power.14 In computer science parlance, Apple concealed within the iOS
`
`updates secret commands that “underclocked” the processors in the affected phones, causing them
`
`to perform calculations across the board at a slower rate than the hardware was capable of
`
`supporting, and slower than they had operated before the iOS updates.
`
`12 Apple Support, Download iOS 10.0-10.3.3 Information,
`https://support.apple.com/kb/d11893?locale+en_US; see also Ex. 2 ((Feb. 2, 2018 Letter from C.
`Hogan to Committee on Energy & Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives).
`13 Matthew Panzarino, “Apple says iOS 10.2.1 has reduced unexpected iPhone 6s shutdown issues
`by 80%,” Tech Crunch (Feb. 23, 2017), https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/apple-says-ios-10-2-1-
`has-reduced-unexpected-iphone-6s-shutdown-issues-by-80/.
`14 Michael Potuck, “Geekbench developer links iPhone performance issues to battery age and iOS
`updates,” 9 to 5 Mac (Dec. 18, 2017), http://9to5mac.com/2017/12/18/iphone-battery-
`performance-issues/.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`11
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`
`55.
`
`Running at a slower rate after the update, the processors in Apple’s Devices would
`
`demand less power during peak operation. This diminished requirement for peak power would
`
`reduce and eliminate instances where the processor would outpace its battery, meaning that even
`
`in their weakened condition, the older batteries could supply enough peak power to meet the now
`
`reduced demands of the processors. Although this “fix” would prevent outright shutdowns, it
`would slow the customers’ product and would scale, meaning as the batteries continued to grow
`weaker, the fix would continue to slow the processors so that demand never outpaced available
`
`power.15
`56.
`
`Neither the software update notification nor the software update release notes made
`
`any mention of this severe throttling effect. Apple concealed the problem; Apple concealed the
`
`solution; and Apple concealed that its solution would slow its customers’ products.
`57.
`
`Users of Apple devices immediately began reporting reduced functionality, but
`
`there was no way for ordinary users to quantify these inklings or give them credence.
`58.
`
`As detailed herein, Apple had to continue releasing the “throttling” software in
`
`future versions of its iOS as new Devices went to market. On September 19, 2017, Apple released
`
`iOS 11. Immediately upon downloading iOS 11, existing Apple iPhone users began to experience
`
`a marked decrease in battery life on their Devices.
`59.
`
`One study of thousands of iPhone users within a monitored network compared the
`
`relative battery life of existing iPhones operating on iOS 10 versus iOS 11. The chart below shows
`
`the rate at which an iPhone with a fully charged battery lost battery power:16
`
`
`15 Reddit Thread, PSA: iPhone slow? Try replacing your battery!, supra.
`16 Liarna LA Porta, “iPhone users charged up over iOS 11 battery drain,” Wander (Sept. 21, 2017),
`https://wandera.com/blog/ios-11-battery-drain/.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`12
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`60.
`
`This study revealed that existing iPhones operating on the iOS 10 software on
`
`average drained to 0% battery after 240 minutes (4 hours), whereas those operating on iOS 11 on
`
`average drained to 0% battery after only 96 minutes (just over 1½ hours). In other words, iOS 11
`
`reduced the average iPhone’s battery life by more than 60%. The study demonstrates the
`
`substantially increased power demands that Apple foist upon users’ Devices through its iOS
`
`update.
`61.
`
`On December 9, 2017, a Reddit user by the handle “TeckFire” posted online
`
`benchmarks (measurements of the speed with which a phone’s processor performs its
`
`computations) of his iPhone 6 operating on its old battery, and again after he had replaced it with a
`
`new battery. The iPhone’s processor’s speed had remarkably increased over 50%. This was
`
`incongruous: a new battery alone should not have had any impact on the processor speed.17
`62.
`
`Then on December 18, 2017, spurred by the ensuing discussion from TeckFire’s
`
`post, John Poole, a software engineer at Primate Labs, published a report based on an analysis of
`
`100,000 iPhones and concluding that the decrease in performance of the affected iPhones was
`
`caused by the iOS 10.2.1 and iOS 11.2 updates, and not the normal decreased function that would
`
`be caused by an aging battery.18
`63.
`
`Poole’s analysis, which measures computer processing benchmarks, showed that
`
`after updating an iPhone 6s to an iOS 11, there were more “cluster points” where performance
`
`
`17 Reddit Thread, PSA: iPhone slow? Try replacing your battery!, supra.
`18 John Poole, “iPhone Performance and Battery Age,” Primate Labs (Dec. 18, 2017) (available at
`https://www.geekbench.com/blog/2017/12/iphone-performance-and-battery-age/).
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`13
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`
`would slow down. The chart below shows phone performance before and after iOS updates that
`
`use a “throttling” program. Ordinarily, operations run smoothly until the battery dies. The “power
`
`management” update bottled up user performance at several points to limit the taxing of the
`
`battery:
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`14
`
`[CASENUM:20-cv-####]
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-06971 Document 1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`64.
`
`As Poole explained, “where the peaks happen represents the cluster of phones
`
`running at that particular performance level. And the height of the peaks (in blue) represents the
`
`relative frequency of benchmarks being performed at that performance level.” This translates to a
`
`real loss of performance. For example, “the iPhone 6s is slowed down by nearly 60%.” This
`
`“effectively turns the device’s performance into that of a device 1-2 generations older.”19
`65.
`
`A processor’s speed is set, in part, by its clock speed which is measured in Hertz
`
`(Hz); the faster a processor is clocked, the faster a processor will normally perform tasks. For
`
`example, Apple advertises the iPhone 6 as having a processor speed of 1.4 GHz. But benchmark
`
`tests run by iPhone 6 users following the iOS 10.2.1 update revealed a processor speed of 600
`
`MHz.
`
`66.
`
`As noted above, on December 20, 2017, Apple admitted to journalists that the iOS
`
`10.2.1 and iOS 11 software updates included a throttling “feature” to slow down older iPhones.
`67.
`
`Apple also asserted: “We now believe that another contributor to these user
`
`experiences is the continued chemical aging of the batteries in older iPhone 6 and iPhone 6s
`
`devices, many of which are still running on their original batteries.”20
`68.
`
`Other smart phone manufacturers, however, use similar lithium-ion batteries and
`
`have not experienced the same problems or resorted to throttling their phones’ performance.
`Samsung, for example, guarantees its Galaxy S7 and Note & lithium-ion batteries will retain 95%
`of their capacity for at least two years; likewise, LG and Google warranty their smart phones’
`
`batteries for two years. Apple’s warranty is shorter:
`Your battery is designed to retain up t