Apple to Pay $113M in 'Batterygate' Settlement with 34 States

Apple has consented to a payment of $113 million to 34 states, along with the District of Columbia, to resolve accusations of violating consumer protection regulations. These allegations stem from the company’s handling of widespread iPhone battery difficulties that surfaced in 2016. This settlement is separate from the $500 million Apple previously paid to customers regarding this matter, as well as other penalties imposed globally.

As previously documented, a software update to iOS resulted in unexpected shutdowns for older iPhone models. Furthermore, an update intended to address this problem secretly reduced the performance capabilities of those same devices.

Many individuals theorized that this was an intentional tactic to encourage users to upgrade to newer phones. While this was not the case, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who spearheaded the multi-state investigation, demonstrated that Apple fully understood the extent of the problem and the limitations of its proposed fix.

Brnovich and other Attorneys General contended that Apple breached several consumer protection laws, including Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act, by “failing to disclose and actively concealing” details concerning the iPhone battery issues and the detrimental, lasting effects of the update released to resolve them.

Apple has reached a $113 million agreement, without admitting any fault, with the funds to be distributed among the states as they see fit. This is a settlement, unlike the €25 million penalty from French regulators; had Apple been subject to statutory penalties, the total amount could have been significantly greater. Arizona’s CFA allows for penalties of up to $10,000 per intentional violation, and even a small portion of that applied to the number of affected users would have resulted in a much larger sum.

Beyond the monetary settlement, Apple is obligated to “offer accurate information to consumers regarding iPhone battery condition, performance, and power management” through various channels. The company had already implemented changes to this effect in prior years, but such stipulations are included in settlements to prevent recurrence, although some companies have been known to repeat the behavior.