Apple Fails to End Lawsuit Claiming It 'Broke' FaceTime

Advertisement
By Reuters | Updated: 1 August 2017 09:42 IST

Apple Inc has failed in its bid to dismiss a lawsuit claiming it disabled the popular FaceTime video conferencing feature on older iPhones to force users to upgrade.

US District Judge Lucy Koh ruled late on Friday that iPhone 4 and 4S users can pursue nationwide class action claims that Apple intentionally "broke" FaceTime to save money from routing calls through servers owned by Akamai Technologies Inc.

Advertisement

Neither Apple nor lawyers for the plaintiffs immediately responded on Monday to requests for comment.

Apple began using Akamai's servers after losing a lawsuit in 2012 in which VirnetX Holding Corp claimed that FaceTime technology infringed its patents.

Advertisement

Testimony from a 2016 retrial in that case showed that Apple paid Akamai $50 million (roughly Rs. 320 crores) in one six-month period.

The plaintiffs said Apple eventually created a cheaper alternative for its iOS 7 operating system, and in April 2014 disabled FaceTime on iOS 6 and earlier systems.

Advertisement

Koh said the plaintiffs alleged some measurable loss to their phones' value, and could try to show that Cupertino, California-based Apple's conduct constituted a trespass and violated state consumer protection laws.

The San Jose, California-based judge twice quoted from what the plaintiffs said was an Apple employee's internal email characterising iOS 6 users as "basically screwed" because of the disabling of FaceTime.

Advertisement

She also rejected Apple's argument that the plaintiffs suffered no economic loss because FaceTime was a "free" service.

"FaceTime is a 'feature' of the iPhone and thus a component of the iPhone's cost," Koh said in a footnote. "Indeed, Apple advertised FaceTime as 'one more thing that makes an iPhone an iPhone.'"

The plaintiffs are led by Christina Grace of Marin County, California, and Ken Potter of San Diego County, California, who both owned the iPhone 4. Akamai was not named as a defendant.

The case is Grace et al v Apple Inc, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-00551.

© Thomson Reuters 2017

 

Get your daily dose of tech news, reviews, and insights, in under 80 characters on Gadgets 360 Turbo. Connect with fellow tech lovers on our Forum. Follow us on X, Facebook, WhatsApp, Threads and Google News for instant updates. Catch all the action on our YouTube channel.

Further reading: Apple, Akamai, FaceTime, iOS 6, Apps, Mobiles
Advertisement

Related Stories

Popular Mobile Brands
  1. Tecno Pova 8 to Launch in India With 8,000mAh Battery on This Day
  2. Xiaomi Pad 8 Price Increased: Here's How Much It Costs Now
  3. Asics Refreshes GEL-Kayano Series With New Stability, Cushioning Upgrades
  1. Sahara Meteorite May Be Fragment of a Lost Moon-Sized World, Study Suggests
  2. OpenAI Introduces Smarter ChatGPT Memory, Adds Dreaming Architecture
  3. Tecno Pova 8 India Launch Date Announced; Battery Size, Design, Colour Options Teased
  4. Samsung Reportedly Starts Internal Testing of Android 17-Based One UI 9 for Galaxy S25 Series
  5. Bybit Lists Western Union’s USDPT Stablecoin for Trading and Transfers
  6. Xiaomi Pad 8 Price Hiked in India: Here’s How Much It Costs Now
  7. Instagram Reels Influencing Nearly Half of Purchase Decisions in India, Meta Study Claims
  8. OnePlus Turbo 6X, OnePlus Turbo 6X Pro Colour Options, Price Range, Key Specifications Teased
  9. Sattendru Maarudhu Vaanilai Now Streaming Online: Where to Watch Jai’s Romantic Thriller Movie
  10. Asics GEL-Kayano 33 Launched in India With New Stability Tech, FluidSupport System
Download Our Apps
Available in Hindi
© Copyright Red Pixels Ventures Limited 2026. All rights reserved.