Law Firm Sues Apple and Samsung, Claiming Phones Exceed Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Levels

Chicago-based law firm Fegan Scott has levied a lawsuit against both Apple and Samsung, claiming that independent testing suggests the radiofrequency radiation levels in recent smartphones “far exceeded the federal limits” when used “as marketed by the manufacturers.”

The basis for this lawsuit dates back to August, when The Chicago Tribune launched an investigation into the radiofrequency radiation levels output by popular smartphones.

RF Radiation Testing Results from a Chicago Times Investigation in August

The paper hired an accredited lab to test several smartphones according to federal guidelines, and found that some of Apple’s iPhones are allegedly emitting radiofrequency radiation that exceeds safety limits.

Apple disputed the results and in a statement, said that the testing was inaccurate “due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the ‌iPhone‌ models.”

“All ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models, including ‌‌iPhone‌‌ 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where ‌‌iPhone‌‌ is sold,” the statement said. “After careful review and subsequent validation of all ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable … exposure guidelines and limits.”

At the time, the FCC said that it would launch its own investigation into the results, and a day after The Chicago Tribune published its findings, the Fegan Scott law firm pledged to launch its own investigation into the claims.

Fegan Scott enlisted an FCC-accredited laboratory to do its own testing of six smartphone models at distances ranging from zero to 10 millimeters to measure the radiofrequency radiation emitted when touching or in close proximity to the body.

The lab that did the testing claims that at two millimeters, the iPhone 8 and Galaxy S8 were “more than twice the federal exposure limit” and at zero millimeters, the ‌iPhone 8‌ was “five times more than the federal exposure limit.”

After receiving the results, Fegan Scott has decided to launch an official lawsuit against both Apple and Samsung covering the ‌iPhone‌ 7 Plus, the ‌iPhone 8‌, the iPhone XR, the Galaxy S8, the Galaxy S9, and the Galaxy S10. From attorney Beth Fegan:

“Apple and Samsung smartphones have changed the way we live. Adults, teenagers and children wake up to check their email or play games and do work or school exercises on their smartphones. They carry these devices in their pockets throughout the day and literally fall asleep with them in their beds.”

“The manufacturers told consumers this was safe, so we knew it was important to test the RF radiation exposure and see if this was true. It is not true. The independent results confirm that RF radiation levels are well over the federal exposure limit, sometimes exceeding it by 500 percent, when phones are used in the way Apple and Samsung encourage us to. Consumers deserve to know the truth.”

According to Fegan Scott, the testing conducted by the lab reflects “actual use conditions” rather than the “conditions set by manufacturers,” which means the testing was likely not done in the same way that Apple does its own internal testing. Apple, for example, tests at 5mm, not 0mm and 2mm.

The Chicago Tribune‘s original testing was done in a manner to simulate the worst possible scenario, with the phone operating in low signal and full power to create the maximum radiofrequency radiation level. It’s not clear how the law firm’s testing was carried out.

There is no evidence that radiofrequency radiation levels above the federal limits have the potential to cause harm, so consumers should not be alarmed at this time. The FCC is doing its own independent testing and those results should provide more insight into the safety of smartphones.

Apple tells its customers worried about radiofrequency radiation exposure to use a hands-free option, and some past ‌iPhone‌ models have included recommended carrying distances. With the ‌iPhone‌ 4 and 4s, for example, Apple said the smartphones should be held at least 10mm away from the body, and there was a similar suggestion made for the ‌iPhone‌ 7.

The lawsuit is seeking damages from Apple as well as funds to pay for medical monitoring.

Tag: lawsuit

This article, “Law Firm Sues Apple and Samsung, Claiming Phones Exceed Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Levels” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Chicago-based law firm Fegan Scott has levied a lawsuit against both Apple and Samsung, claiming that independent testing suggests the radiofrequency radiation levels in recent smartphones "far exceeded the federal limits" when used "as marketed by the manufacturers."

The basis for this lawsuit dates back to August, when The Chicago Tribune launched an investigation into the radiofrequency radiation levels output by popular smartphones.

RF Radiation Testing Results from a Chicago Times Investigation in August

The paper hired an accredited lab to test several smartphones according to federal guidelines, and found that some of Apple's iPhones are allegedly emitting radiofrequency radiation that exceeds safety limits.

Apple disputed the results and in a statement, said that the testing was inaccurate "due to the test setup not being in accordance with procedures necessary to properly assess the ‌iPhone‌ models."
"All ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models, including ‌‌iPhone‌‌ 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every other country where ‌‌iPhone‌‌ is sold," the statement said. "After careful review and subsequent validation of all ‌‌iPhone‌‌ models tested in the (Tribune) report, we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable ... exposure guidelines and limits."
At the time, the FCC said that it would launch its own investigation into the results, and a day after The Chicago Tribune published its findings, the Fegan Scott law firm pledged to launch its own investigation into the claims.

Fegan Scott enlisted an FCC-accredited laboratory to do its own testing of six smartphone models at distances ranging from zero to 10 millimeters to measure the radiofrequency radiation emitted when touching or in close proximity to the body.

The lab that did the testing claims that at two millimeters, the iPhone 8 and Galaxy S8 were "more than twice the federal exposure limit" and at zero millimeters, the ‌iPhone 8‌ was "five times more than the federal exposure limit."

After receiving the results, Fegan Scott has decided to launch an official lawsuit against both Apple and Samsung covering the ‌iPhone‌ 7 Plus, the ‌iPhone 8‌, the iPhone XR, the Galaxy S8, the Galaxy S9, and the Galaxy S10. From attorney Beth Fegan:
"Apple and Samsung smartphones have changed the way we live. Adults, teenagers and children wake up to check their email or play games and do work or school exercises on their smartphones. They carry these devices in their pockets throughout the day and literally fall asleep with them in their beds."

"The manufacturers told consumers this was safe, so we knew it was important to test the RF radiation exposure and see if this was true. It is not true. The independent results confirm that RF radiation levels are well over the federal exposure limit, sometimes exceeding it by 500 percent, when phones are used in the way Apple and Samsung encourage us to. Consumers deserve to know the truth."
According to Fegan Scott, the testing conducted by the lab reflects "actual use conditions" rather than the "conditions set by manufacturers," which means the testing was likely not done in the same way that Apple does its own internal testing. Apple, for example, tests at 5mm, not 0mm and 2mm.

The Chicago Tribune's original testing was done in a manner to simulate the worst possible scenario, with the phone operating in low signal and full power to create the maximum radiofrequency radiation level. It's not clear how the law firm's testing was carried out.

There is no evidence that radiofrequency radiation levels above the federal limits have the potential to cause harm, so consumers should not be alarmed at this time. The FCC is doing its own independent testing and those results should provide more insight into the safety of smartphones.

Apple tells its customers worried about radiofrequency radiation exposure to use a hands-free option, and some past ‌iPhone‌ models have included recommended carrying distances. With the ‌iPhone‌ 4 and 4s, for example, Apple said the smartphones should be held at least 10mm away from the body, and there was a similar suggestion made for the ‌iPhone‌ 7.

The lawsuit is seeking damages from Apple as well as funds to pay for medical monitoring.

Tag: lawsuit

This article, "Law Firm Sues Apple and Samsung, Claiming Phones Exceed Radiofrequency Radiation Safety Levels" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Lawsuit Against Apple’s Faulty Butterfly Keyboards Moves Forward

A federal judge this week rejected Apple’s request to dismiss a class action lawsuit over its faulty butterfly keyboards, reports Reuters, which means the lawsuit will proceed.

The complainants believe that Apple knew of and concealed the fact that its 2015 and later MacBook models had keyboards prone to failure and that its repair program does not serve as an effective fix because replacement butterfly keyboards can also fail.


San Jose District Judge Edward Davila said that Apple must face the claims that the repair program is inadequate or compensate customers for their out-of-pocket expenses for repairs.

The lawsuit covers customers who purchased 2015 MacBook models or later and 2016 MacBook Pro models or later, which includes all machines that are equipped with Apple’s butterfly keyboard. Apple has faced public scrutiny and many, many complaints over the butterfly keyboard’s penchant to fail when exposed to dust and other small particulates.

Apple launched a repair program that covers all of its MacBook, ‌MacBook Pro‌, and MacBook Air models that have a butterfly keyboard, but at the current time, all keyboard replacements are also butterfly keyboards.

Apple has attempted to revise the butterfly keyboard several times to make it more durable, but ultimately, it’s still prone to failure.


With the recently released 16-inch MacBook Pro Apple eliminated the butterfly mechanism and reverted to a more reliable scissor mechanism, but the new 16-inch ‌MacBook Pro‌ keyboard is limited to that machine and older models are still getting repairs with butterfly keyboards.

The lawsuit is seeking damages for violations of consumer protection laws in several dates. Benjamin Johns, lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Reuters that he’s pleased with the decision and looks forward to pursuing the case.

This article, “Lawsuit Against Apple’s Faulty Butterfly Keyboards Moves Forward” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

A federal judge this week rejected Apple's request to dismiss a class action lawsuit over its faulty butterfly keyboards, reports Reuters, which means the lawsuit will proceed.

The complainants believe that Apple knew of and concealed the fact that its 2015 and later MacBook models had keyboards prone to failure and that its repair program does not serve as an effective fix because replacement butterfly keyboards can also fail.


San Jose District Judge Edward Davila said that Apple must face the claims that the repair program is inadequate or compensate customers for their out-of-pocket expenses for repairs.

The lawsuit covers customers who purchased 2015 MacBook models or later and 2016 MacBook Pro models or later, which includes all machines that are equipped with Apple's butterfly keyboard. Apple has faced public scrutiny and many, many complaints over the butterfly keyboard's penchant to fail when exposed to dust and other small particulates.

Apple launched a repair program that covers all of its MacBook, ‌MacBook Pro‌, and MacBook Air models that have a butterfly keyboard, but at the current time, all keyboard replacements are also butterfly keyboards.

Apple has attempted to revise the butterfly keyboard several times to make it more durable, but ultimately, it's still prone to failure.


With the recently released 16-inch MacBook Pro Apple eliminated the butterfly mechanism and reverted to a more reliable scissor mechanism, but the new 16-inch ‌MacBook Pro‌ keyboard is limited to that machine and older models are still getting repairs with butterfly keyboards.

The lawsuit is seeking damages for violations of consumer protection laws in several dates. Benjamin Johns, lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Reuters that he's pleased with the decision and looks forward to pursuing the case.


This article, "Lawsuit Against Apple's Faulty Butterfly Keyboards Moves Forward" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple and Intel Sue SoftBank-Owned Firm Over ‘Endless, Meritless’ Patent Lawsuits

Apple and Intel on Wednesday jointly filed a lawsuit against SoftBank-owned investment firm Fortress Investment Group, accusing the company of violating U.S. federal antitrust laws by pursuing “endless, meritless” patent litigation.

The complaint alleges that non-practicing patent assertion entities like Fortress aggressively pursue patent litigation against large companies like Apple and Intel, knowing that even if they lose several cases, they could eventually win a case with a large monetary reward that exceeds their losses.


Apple and Intel argue that Fortress-backed entities have “sought billions of dollars” from the two companies over the years, forcing both tech giants to spend “millions of dollars” on outside resources like counsel and expert witnesses to defend against Fortress-backed demands and assertions.

Fortress-backed entities like Uniloc, DSS Technology Management, and Seven Networks are also named in the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters. The complaint was filed in Northern California federal court.

Apple and Intel v. Fortress… by MacRumors on Scribd

Tags: lawsuit, Intel

This article, “Apple and Intel Sue SoftBank-Owned Firm Over ‘Endless, Meritless’ Patent Lawsuits” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple and Intel on Wednesday jointly filed a lawsuit against SoftBank-owned investment firm Fortress Investment Group, accusing the company of violating U.S. federal antitrust laws by pursuing "endless, meritless" patent litigation.

The complaint alleges that non-practicing patent assertion entities like Fortress aggressively pursue patent litigation against large companies like Apple and Intel, knowing that even if they lose several cases, they could eventually win a case with a large monetary reward that exceeds their losses.


Apple and Intel argue that Fortress-backed entities have "sought billions of dollars" from the two companies over the years, forcing both tech giants to spend "millions of dollars" on outside resources like counsel and expert witnesses to defend against Fortress-backed demands and assertions.

Fortress-backed entities like Uniloc, DSS Technology Management, and Seven Networks are also named in the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters. The complaint was filed in Northern California federal court.

Apple and Intel v. Fortress... by MacRumors on Scribd



Tags: lawsuit, Intel

This article, "Apple and Intel Sue SoftBank-Owned Firm Over 'Endless, Meritless' Patent Lawsuits" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Corellium Responds to Apple Lawsuit, Claims its iOS Virtualization Software Helps Apple

Apple in August filed a lawsuit against Corellium, a mobile device virtualization company that supports iOS, with Apple accusing Corellium of copyright infringement for replicating the operating system that runs on the iPhone and iPad.

As noted by Motherboard, Corellium today filed its response to Apple’s lawsuit, accusing the Cupertino company of owing $300,000 and claiming that its software helps Apple by making it easier for security researchers to track down iOS bugs.

A virtual iPhone on Corellium’s website used as evidence in Apple’s lawsuit against the company

According to Apple, Corellium’s product infringes on its copyrights by creating digital replicas of iOS, iTunes, and other apps and software. “Corellium has simply copied everything: the code, the graphical user interface, the icons – all of it, in exacting detail,” reads Apple’s lawsuit.

Corellium designed its software to create virtual iOS devices able to run iOS, and has encouraged researchers and hackers to use it to find and test vulnerabilities.

According to Corellium, Apple’s code in its product is “fair use” and the software makes the world better by allowing security researchers to look into iOS, find flaws, and inform Apple so the bugs can be fixed.

Corellium argues it’s easier for researchers to find and test bugs in iOS using virtual instances of iOS rather than physical devices. With this lawsuit, says Corellium, Apple is aiming to control who is allowed to find vulnerabilities in its software. This is a position that is also supported within the security community, according to Motherboard, and many security researchers were surprised by Apple’s initial lawsuit.

Through its invitation-only research device program and this lawsuit, Apple is trying to control who is permitted to identify vulnerabilities, if and how Apple will address identified vulnerabilities, and if Apple will disclose identified vulnerabilities to the public at all.

One of Corellium’s key arguments is that its customers are seeking bugs with the intention of alerting Apple of their existence, which Motherboard points out is just an assumption and, based on evidence, not true. One customer highlighted in Corellium’s legal response, for example, is Azimuth, a company that does not report bugs to Apple.

Instead, Azimuth sells hacking tools based on those bugs to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in countries like the United States and Canada.

Corellium also argues that Apple has known about the company for years and has been friendly to Chris Wade, one of Corellium’s founders. Corellium says that Wade was invited to join Apple’s bug bounty program. Wade has since reported seven bugs to Apple without receiving payment, which is why Corellium argues that Apple owes $300,000.

Apple declined to provide Motherboard with a comment on Corellium’s legal response. Apple is continuing to seek a permanent injunction to prevent Corellium from offering a product that replicates iOS. Apple also wants Corellium to destroy all infringing materials that it’s collected, and pay Apple damages, lost profits, and attorney fees.

Tag: lawsuit

This article, “Corellium Responds to Apple Lawsuit, Claims its iOS Virtualization Software Helps Apple” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple in August filed a lawsuit against Corellium, a mobile device virtualization company that supports iOS, with Apple accusing Corellium of copyright infringement for replicating the operating system that runs on the iPhone and iPad.

As noted by Motherboard, Corellium today filed its response to Apple's lawsuit, accusing the Cupertino company of owing $300,000 and claiming that its software helps Apple by making it easier for security researchers to track down iOS bugs.

A virtual iPhone on Corellium's website used as evidence in Apple's lawsuit against the company

According to Apple, Corellium's product infringes on its copyrights by creating digital replicas of iOS, iTunes, and other apps and software. "Corellium has simply copied everything: the code, the graphical user interface, the icons - all of it, in exacting detail," reads Apple's lawsuit.

Corellium designed its software to create virtual iOS devices able to run iOS, and has encouraged researchers and hackers to use it to find and test vulnerabilities.

According to Corellium, Apple's code in its product is "fair use" and the software makes the world better by allowing security researchers to look into iOS, find flaws, and inform Apple so the bugs can be fixed.

Corellium argues it's easier for researchers to find and test bugs in iOS using virtual instances of iOS rather than physical devices. With this lawsuit, says Corellium, Apple is aiming to control who is allowed to find vulnerabilities in its software. This is a position that is also supported within the security community, according to Motherboard, and many security researchers were surprised by Apple's initial lawsuit.
Through its invitation-only research device program and this lawsuit, Apple is trying to control who is permitted to identify vulnerabilities, if and how Apple will address identified vulnerabilities, and if Apple will disclose identified vulnerabilities to the public at all.
One of Corellium's key arguments is that its customers are seeking bugs with the intention of alerting Apple of their existence, which Motherboard points out is just an assumption and, based on evidence, not true. One customer highlighted in Corellium's legal response, for example, is Azimuth, a company that does not report bugs to Apple.

Instead, Azimuth sells hacking tools based on those bugs to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in countries like the United States and Canada.

Corellium also argues that Apple has known about the company for years and has been friendly to Chris Wade, one of Corellium's founders. Corellium says that Wade was invited to join Apple's bug bounty program. Wade has since reported seven bugs to Apple without receiving payment, which is why Corellium argues that Apple owes $300,000.

Apple declined to provide Motherboard with a comment on Corellium's legal response. Apple is continuing to seek a permanent injunction to prevent Corellium from offering a product that replicates iOS. Apple also wants Corellium to destroy all infringing materials that it's collected, and pay Apple damages, lost profits, and attorney fees.

Tag: lawsuit

This article, "Corellium Responds to Apple Lawsuit, Claims its iOS Virtualization Software Helps Apple" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Former Apple Lawyer Facing Criminal Charges for Insider Trading

Former Apple lawyer Gene Levoff, who was in charge of enforcing Apple’s Insider Trading Policy, is facing criminal charges related to insider trading of Apple stock, reports CNBC.

Levoff was today indicted for insider trading, and he is facing six counts of security fraud and six counts of wire fraud. According to the U.S. government, Levoff used inside information from Apple, including financial results before they were published, to sell Apple stock ahead of weaker than expected earnings results between 2011 and 2016 as well as to purchase stock during stronger quarters.


This scheme to defraud Company-1 and its shareholders allowed Levoff to realize profits of approximately $227,000 on certain trades and to avoid losses of approximately $377,000 on others.

When Levoff discovered that Company-1 had posted strong revenue and net profit for a given financial quarter, he purchased large quantities of stock, which he later sold for a profit once the market reacted to the news.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission first filed charges against Gene Levoff in February, but now he is facing criminal charges in addition to civil charges.

Levoff worked for Apple from 2008 to 2018, and prior to when he was fired from the company, he was the senior director of corporate law.

Apple declined to comment on the criminal charges filed today, but in February, said the following: “After being contacted by authorities last summer we conducted a thorough investigation with the help of outside legal experts, which resulted in termination.”

Tags: lawsuit, AAPL, SEC

This article, “Former Apple Lawyer Facing Criminal Charges for Insider Trading” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Former Apple lawyer Gene Levoff, who was in charge of enforcing Apple's Insider Trading Policy, is facing criminal charges related to insider trading of Apple stock, reports CNBC.

Levoff was today indicted for insider trading, and he is facing six counts of security fraud and six counts of wire fraud. According to the U.S. government, Levoff used inside information from Apple, including financial results before they were published, to sell Apple stock ahead of weaker than expected earnings results between 2011 and 2016 as well as to purchase stock during stronger quarters.

This scheme to defraud Company-1 and its shareholders allowed Levoff to realize profits of approximately $227,000 on certain trades and to avoid losses of approximately $377,000 on others.

When Levoff discovered that Company-1 had posted strong revenue and net profit for a given financial quarter, he purchased large quantities of stock, which he later sold for a profit once the market reacted to the news.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission first filed charges against Gene Levoff in February, but now he is facing criminal charges in addition to civil charges.

Levoff worked for Apple from 2008 to 2018, and prior to when he was fired from the company, he was the senior director of corporate law.

Apple declined to comment on the criminal charges filed today, but in February, said the following: "After being contacted by authorities last summer we conducted a thorough investigation with the help of outside legal experts, which resulted in termination."

Tags: lawsuit, AAPL, SEC

This article, "Former Apple Lawyer Facing Criminal Charges for Insider Trading" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear University of Wisconsin’s Appeal in Patent Lawsuit Against Apple

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear the University of Wisconsin’s appeal in its patent fight with Apple, according to Reuters.


In July 2017, a U.S. district court ordered Apple to pay $506 million to the University of Wisconsin’s Alumni Research Foundation for infringing on a patent related to computer processing technology with its A7, A8, and A8X chips.

In September 2018, however, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the damages that Apple had been ordered to pay, ruling that no reasonable juror could have been able to find infringement based on the evidence that was presented in the liability phase of the original 2015 trial.

The decision comes on the first day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 term.

Tag: lawsuit

This article, “U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear University of Wisconsin’s Appeal in Patent Lawsuit Against Apple” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear the University of Wisconsin's appeal in its patent fight with Apple, according to Reuters.


In July 2017, a U.S. district court ordered Apple to pay $506 million to the University of Wisconsin's Alumni Research Foundation for infringing on a patent related to computer processing technology with its A7, A8, and A8X chips.

In September 2018, however, the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the damages that Apple had been ordered to pay, ruling that no reasonable juror could have been able to find infringement based on the evidence that was presented in the liability phase of the original 2015 trial.

The decision comes on the first day of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2019 term.

Tag: lawsuit

This article, "U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear University of Wisconsin's Appeal in Patent Lawsuit Against Apple" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

U.K. Court Reinstates Lawsuit Accusing Google of Bypassing Safari’s Privacy Settings to Track iPhone Users

An appeals court in London has reinstated a lawsuit filed against Google that accuses the company of unlawfully gathering personal information by circumventing the iPhone’s default privacy settings, according to Bloomberg.


The collective action, equivalent to a class action lawsuit in the United States, alleged that Google illegally tracked and gathered the personal data of over four million iPhone users in the U.K. between 2011 and 2012. The case was first brought in November 2017 and had been dismissed in October 2018.

“This case, quite properly if the allegations are proved, seeks to call Google to account for its allegedly wholesale and deliberate misuse of personal data without consent, undertaken with a view to a commercial profit,” wrote Judge Geoffrey Vos in a ruling today, per the report.

A similar lawsuit was filed in the United States in 2012, when Google was discovered to be circumventing privacy protections in Safari on iOS in order to track users through ads on numerous popular websites.

Specifically, Google took advantage of a Safari loophole that made the browser think that the user was interacting with a given ad, thus allowing a tracking cookie to be installed. With that cookie installed, it became easy for Google to add additional cookies and to track users across the web.

At the time, Safari blocked several types of tracking, but made an exception for websites where a person interacted in some way — by filling out a form, for example. Google added code to some of its ads that made Safari think that a person was submitting an invisible form to Google, thus creating a temporary cookie.

Google stopped this practice after it was reported by The Wall Street Journal, and refuted many details of the report, while Apple closed the loophole in a Safari update shortly after. Google also paid a then-record $22.5 million fine to the Federal Trade Commission over its practices back in 2012.

“Protecting the privacy and security of our users has always been our No. 1 priority,” a Google spokeswoman told Bloomberg. “This case relates to events that took place nearly a decade ago and that we addressed at the time.”

This article, “U.K. Court Reinstates Lawsuit Accusing Google of Bypassing Safari’s Privacy Settings to Track iPhone Users” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

An appeals court in London has reinstated a lawsuit filed against Google that accuses the company of unlawfully gathering personal information by circumventing the iPhone's default privacy settings, according to Bloomberg.


The collective action, equivalent to a class action lawsuit in the United States, alleged that Google illegally tracked and gathered the personal data of over four million iPhone users in the U.K. between 2011 and 2012. The case was first brought in November 2017 and had been dismissed in October 2018.

"This case, quite properly if the allegations are proved, seeks to call Google to account for its allegedly wholesale and deliberate misuse of personal data without consent, undertaken with a view to a commercial profit," wrote Judge Geoffrey Vos in a ruling today, per the report.

A similar lawsuit was filed in the United States in 2012, when Google was discovered to be circumventing privacy protections in Safari on iOS in order to track users through ads on numerous popular websites.

Specifically, Google took advantage of a Safari loophole that made the browser think that the user was interacting with a given ad, thus allowing a tracking cookie to be installed. With that cookie installed, it became easy for Google to add additional cookies and to track users across the web.

At the time, Safari blocked several types of tracking, but made an exception for websites where a person interacted in some way — by filling out a form, for example. Google added code to some of its ads that made Safari think that a person was submitting an invisible form to Google, thus creating a temporary cookie.

Google stopped this practice after it was reported by The Wall Street Journal, and refuted many details of the report, while Apple closed the loophole in a Safari update shortly after. Google also paid a then-record $22.5 million fine to the Federal Trade Commission over its practices back in 2012.

"Protecting the privacy and security of our users has always been our No. 1 priority," a Google spokeswoman told Bloomberg. "This case relates to events that took place nearly a decade ago and that we addressed at the time."


This article, "U.K. Court Reinstates Lawsuit Accusing Google of Bypassing Safari's Privacy Settings to Track iPhone Users" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple Sued Over Listing Memoji as One of Its Registered Trademarks Despite Ongoing Legal Battle

Atlanta-based company Social Technologies LLC today filed a lawsuit against Apple that accuses the iPhone maker of falsely indicating that it holds the federal registration for the trademark Memoji in the United States.

Apple has included MEMOJI® in its U.S. trademark list on its website since June 2019, with the ® symbol signifying a federally registered trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, despite the federal registration for the trademark belonging to Social Technologies LLC and not Apple.

Of note, Apple has successfully registered the Memoji trademark in some countries outside the United States, and several foreign countries also use ® to indicate that a mark is registered in that country, but fine print on Apple’s website says its list is for trademarks and service marks in the United States.


Memoji is the name of Apple’s personalized emoji feature for iPhone and iPad, introduced as part of iOS 12 at WWDC 2018. Apple has applied for two trademarks for the feature with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but both are currently suspended due to ongoing litigation with Social Technologies LLC.

Social Technologies LLC offers an Android app named Memoji on the Google Play store, which it describes as “the world’s best messaging app that will capture the facial expression of the end user with full-motion capabilities, and transpose the image into a custom, personalized emoji of the users actual face.”

Social Technologies LLC already sued Apple for trademark infringement in September 2018, and alleges that Apple even unsuccessfully tried to purchase the rights to its then intent-to-use application in April 2016, yet Apple proceeded to add MEMOJI® to its trademark list in June 2019.

An excerpt from the complaint filed with a U.S. federal court in New York:

Social Tech visited Apple’s Trademark List1 on June 17, 2019, a day before the deposition of Mr. Thomas La Perle, Apple’s Senior Director of Copyright and Trademark in connection with Plaintiff’s trademark infringement action against Apple in the Northern District of California. As of that date—June 17, 2019—MEMOJI was not listed on Apple’s Trademark List.

However, immediately following Mr. La Perle’s deposition, the Trademark List was updated to include the falsely designated MEMOJI® mark. On information and belief, Mr. La Perle orchestrated a scheme to undermine Social Tech’s registered trademark rights and mislead the public by causing Apple to add the falsely designated mark to Apple’s Trademark List.

Social Technologies LLC is seeking an injunction to prohibit Apple from using the ® symbol in connection with Memoji, as well as an award of monetary damages and legal fees. The small company also wants a declaration that it owns the only federally registered Memoji trademark.

The full complaint, sent to us by law firm Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, is embedded below.

Social Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. et al by MacRumors on Scribd

This article, “Apple Sued Over Listing Memoji as One of Its Registered Trademarks Despite Ongoing Legal Battle” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Atlanta-based company Social Technologies LLC today filed a lawsuit against Apple that accuses the iPhone maker of falsely indicating that it holds the federal registration for the trademark Memoji in the United States.

Apple has included MEMOJI® in its U.S. trademark list on its website since June 2019, with the ® symbol signifying a federally registered trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, despite the federal registration for the trademark belonging to Social Technologies LLC and not Apple.

Of note, Apple has successfully registered the Memoji trademark in some countries outside the United States, and several foreign countries also use ® to indicate that a mark is registered in that country, but fine print on Apple's website says its list is for trademarks and service marks in the United States.


Memoji is the name of Apple's personalized emoji feature for iPhone and iPad, introduced as part of iOS 12 at WWDC 2018. Apple has applied for two trademarks for the feature with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but both are currently suspended due to ongoing litigation with Social Technologies LLC.

Social Technologies LLC offers an Android app named Memoji on the Google Play store, which it describes as "the world's best messaging app that will capture the facial expression of the end user with full-motion capabilities, and transpose the image into a custom, personalized emoji of the users actual face."

Social Technologies LLC already sued Apple for trademark infringement in September 2018, and alleges that Apple even unsuccessfully tried to purchase the rights to its then intent-to-use application in April 2016, yet Apple proceeded to add MEMOJI® to its trademark list in June 2019.

An excerpt from the complaint filed with a U.S. federal court in New York:
Social Tech visited Apple's Trademark List1 on June 17, 2019, a day before the deposition of Mr. Thomas La Perle, Apple's Senior Director of Copyright and Trademark in connection with Plaintiff's trademark infringement action against Apple in the Northern District of California. As of that date—June 17, 2019—MEMOJI was not listed on Apple's Trademark List.

However, immediately following Mr. La Perle's deposition, the Trademark List was updated to include the falsely designated MEMOJI® mark. On information and belief, Mr. La Perle orchestrated a scheme to undermine Social Tech's registered trademark rights and mislead the public by causing Apple to add the falsely designated mark to Apple’s Trademark List.
Social Technologies LLC is seeking an injunction to prohibit Apple from using the ® symbol in connection with Memoji, as well as an award of monetary damages and legal fees. The small company also wants a declaration that it owns the only federally registered Memoji trademark.

The full complaint, sent to us by law firm Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, is embedded below. Continue reading "Apple Sued Over Listing Memoji as One of Its Registered Trademarks Despite Ongoing Legal Battle"

Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare Moves Forward

A U.S. District Judge in San Jose today certified a class action lawsuit that accuses Apple of using “inferior” refurbished products as replacements for its AppleCare and AppleCare+ protection plans despite promising consumers new or equivalent to new replacements. [PDF]

The class action lawsuit was first filed against Apple in July 2016 by customers in California who were unhappy that their iPhones and iPads were replaced by refurbished devices under Apple’s AppleCare or AppleCare+ plan.


The plaintiffs, Vicky Maldondo and Joanne McRight, claimed that Apple’s decision to offer refurbished devices violate its own AppleCare Terms and Conditions and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. From the original lawsuit:

The Apple Plans purport to provide consumers with Devices that are “equivalent to new in performance and reliability.” What that phrase means is ‘new’ as refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in performance and reliability. Plaintiffs allege that it means refurbished. Refurbished is synonymous with the term “reconditioned,” that is, a secondhand unit that has been modified to appear to be new for all purposes relevant to this litigation.

“New” means a Device that has never been utilized or previously sold and consists of all new parts. The word “refurbished” appears only once in the AppleCare+ terms and conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for iPhone, iPad, or iPod owners who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+ coverage.

The law firm behind the lawsuit says that Apple customers who paid for AppleCare should have received new Apple devices that Apple promised, and is aiming for the difference in value “between devices that work like new and the inferior devices Apple provided class members.”

This article, “Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare Moves Forward” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

A U.S. District Judge in San Jose today certified a class action lawsuit that accuses Apple of using "inferior" refurbished products as replacements for its AppleCare and AppleCare+ protection plans despite promising consumers new or equivalent to new replacements. [PDF]

The class action lawsuit was first filed against Apple in July 2016 by customers in California who were unhappy that their iPhones and iPads were replaced by refurbished devices under Apple's AppleCare or AppleCare+ plan.


The plaintiffs, Vicky Maldondo and Joanne McRight, claimed that Apple's decision to offer refurbished devices violate its own AppleCare Terms and Conditions and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. From the original lawsuit:
The Apple Plans purport to provide consumers with Devices that are "equivalent to new in performance and reliability." What that phrase means is 'new' as refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in performance and reliability. Plaintiffs allege that it means refurbished. Refurbished is synonymous with the term "reconditioned," that is, a secondhand unit that has been modified to appear to be new for all purposes relevant to this litigation.

"New" means a Device that has never been utilized or previously sold and consists of all new parts. The word "refurbished" appears only once in the AppleCare+ terms and conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long.
The lawsuit seeks compensation for iPhone, iPad, or iPod owners who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+ coverage.

The law firm behind the lawsuit says that Apple customers who paid for AppleCare should have received new Apple devices that Apple promised, and is aiming for the difference in value "between devices that work like new and the inferior devices Apple provided class members."


This article, "Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple for Offering Refurbished Replacement Devices Under AppleCare Moves Forward" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple Faces Yet Another Class Action Lawsuit Over ‘Secretly Throttling’ Older iPhones

A group of 18 individuals have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple this week in a Northern California federal court, accusing the company of “secretly throttling” older iPhones starting in January 2017.


The complaint, seen by MacRumors, refers to the iPhone slowdown saga as “one of the largest consumer frauds in history, affecting hundreds of millions of mobile devices across the globe,” adding that Apple intentionally degraded devices as part of a planned obsolescence scheme to maximize profits:

While Plaintiffs and the class need not attribute any motive behind Apple’s intentional degradation of the Devices, it is evident that Apple continued to do so for the simple reason most frauds are committed: money.

Apple previously denied any kind of planned obsolescence by flat out stating that it never has and never would do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience, to drive customer upgrades:

We have never — and would never — do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades. Our goal has always been to create products that our customers love, and making iPhones last as long as possible is an important part of that.

Apple faces over 60 class action lawsuits worldwide over this matter. The first was filed in December 2017, after Apple revealed that it throttles the maximum performance of some older iPhone models with chemically aged batteries when necessary in order to prevent the devices from unexpectedly shutting down.

This latest lawsuit will likely be consolidated with the others in Northern California district court for streamlined proceedings.

Apple introduced the performance management system in iOS 10.2.1, but it did not initially mention the change in the update’s release notes. Likewise, in a statement issued a month later, Apple still only mentioned vague “improvements” resulting in a significant reduction in unexpected iPhone shutdowns.

Apple only revealed exactly what the so-called “improvements” were after Primate Labs founder John Poole visualized that some iPhone 6s and iPhone 7 devices suddenly had lower benchmark scores starting with iOS 10.2.1 and iOS 11.2 respectively, despite operating at maximum performance on previous versions.

Apple apologized for its lack of communication in December 2017, and reduced the price of battery replacements to $29 for iPhone 6 and newer through the end of 2018. Apple then released iOS 11.3 with a new feature that enables users to track their iPhone battery’s health and performance status.

The performance management system has also been disabled by default since iOS 11.3, and it is only enabled if an iPhone suffers an unexpected shutdown. The performance management can be manually disabled by users as well.

MacRumors put together a list of frequently asked questions and answers about Apple’s performance management system, which can be avoided entirely by replacing your iPhone’s battery if necessary. Read our guide on how to get an iPhone’s battery replaced at an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider.

The full complaint is embedded ahead…

Naylor et. al. vs. Apple Inc. by MacRumors on Scribd on Scribd

This article, “Apple Faces Yet Another Class Action Lawsuit Over ‘Secretly Throttling’ Older iPhones” first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

A group of 18 individuals have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple this week in a Northern California federal court, accusing the company of "secretly throttling" older iPhones starting in January 2017.


The complaint, seen by MacRumors, refers to the iPhone slowdown saga as "one of the largest consumer frauds in history, affecting hundreds of millions of mobile devices across the globe," adding that Apple intentionally degraded devices as part of a planned obsolescence scheme to maximize profits:
While Plaintiffs and the class need not attribute any motive behind Apple's intentional degradation of the Devices, it is evident that Apple continued to do so for the simple reason most frauds are committed: money.
Apple previously denied any kind of planned obsolescence by flat out stating that it never has and never would do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience, to drive customer upgrades:
We have never — and would never — do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades. Our goal has always been to create products that our customers love, and making iPhones last as long as possible is an important part of that.
Apple faces over 60 class action lawsuits worldwide over this matter. The first was filed in December 2017, after Apple revealed that it throttles the maximum performance of some older iPhone models with chemically aged batteries when necessary in order to prevent the devices from unexpectedly shutting down.

This latest lawsuit will likely be consolidated with the others in Northern California district court for streamlined proceedings.

Apple introduced the performance management system in iOS 10.2.1, but it did not initially mention the change in the update's release notes. Likewise, in a statement issued a month later, Apple still only mentioned vague "improvements" resulting in a significant reduction in unexpected iPhone shutdowns.

Apple only revealed exactly what the so-called "improvements" were after Primate Labs founder John Poole visualized that some iPhone 6s and iPhone 7 devices suddenly had lower benchmark scores starting with iOS 10.2.1 and iOS 11.2 respectively, despite operating at maximum performance on previous versions.

Apple apologized for its lack of communication in December 2017, and reduced the price of battery replacements to $29 for iPhone 6 and newer through the end of 2018. Apple then released iOS 11.3 with a new feature that enables users to track their iPhone battery's health and performance status.

The performance management system has also been disabled by default since iOS 11.3, and it is only enabled if an iPhone suffers an unexpected shutdown. The performance management can be manually disabled by users as well.

MacRumors put together a list of frequently asked questions and answers about Apple's performance management system, which can be avoided entirely by replacing your iPhone's battery if necessary. Read our guide on how to get an iPhone's battery replaced at an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider.

The full complaint is embedded ahead… Continue reading "Apple Faces Yet Another Class Action Lawsuit Over ‘Secretly Throttling’ Older iPhones"