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.

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.'"

Advertisement

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. OnePlus 16 vs iQOO 16: Price and Specifications Compared
  2. Samsung Galaxy F70 5G With a 5,000mAh Battery Goes on Sale in India
  3. Vivo X500 Ultra Could Launch Next Year With This Flagship Snapdragon SoC
  4. Samsung Galaxy S26 FE Review: Near-Flagship Specs, But at What Cost?
  5. Oppo F35 Pro 5G Review: An 8,000mAh Battery and a Lot to Like
  6. Here's When Apple's 'Pro and Tell' Launch Event Takes Place
  7. Silicon-Carbon vs Lithium-Ion Batteries: Which One Should You Get?
  1. Samsung Galaxy F70 5G With 5,000mAh Battery, 50-Megapixel Camera Goes on Sale in India: Price, Offers
  2. Apple ‘Pro and Tell’ Event Set for Next Week; First MacBook With Touchscreen, New iPad Mini and More Expected to Launch
  3. Cysic Shuts Down Bridge After Attacker Illegally Creates 10 Million CYS Tokens
  4. JPM Coin Arrives on Ethereum as JPMorgan Expands Institutional Payments
  5. Vivo V80 FE Reportedly Spotted on BIS Certification Website, India Launch Seems Imminent
  6. Airtel’s New Recharges in India Announced: Rs. 185, Rs. 203 and Rs. 206 Voice-Only Plans Details
  7. Vivo X500 Ultra Leak Reveals Launch Timeline, Chipset, Display and Key Specifications
  8. iQOO Neo 12 Launch Date Announced; Design, Colour Options Teased
  9. Qubic Halts Chain as Attacker Exploits Weak Seeds to Drain 1,400 Wallets
  10. iPhone Duo Battery Capacity Revealed Days Before Foldable Goes on Sale
Download Our Apps
Available in Hindi
© Copyright Red Pixels Ventures Limited 2026. All rights reserved.