Source: https://vi.scribd.com/document/368540044/Victor-Mallh-Class-Action-Against-Apple-for-Slowing-IPhones-Jan-2018
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:44:05+00:00

Document:
Victor Mallh filed Class Action #20 against Apple for purposely slowing iPhones in the New York District Court (Brooklyn). An additional four Class Action lawsuits have been made public thus far that are in-the-works in Canada, South Korea, Australia and France.
2017	5	Released	on	July	19.	iOS	10. Apple’s	misrepresentations	and	omissions	severely	harmed	owners	and/or	users	of	older	iPhones.	iOS	10.0.	3.	which	interferes	with	ordinary	use.	and	iOS	11.27.	Apple	admitted	that	it	intentionally	designed	iOS	10	and	iOS	11	Updates	so	as	to	limit	iPhone	performance	in	certain	circumstances.	iOS	11.	2017	11	Released	on	November	16.	2017	8	Released	on	October	11.	As	a	result	of	installing	iOS	10	and	iOS	11	Updates. Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2 on	their	iPhones	was	updated	to	any	of	the	following:	iOS	10.0.	slow	iPhone	performance.	New	York	consumers	such	as	the	Plaintiffs	must	either	continue	using	iPhones	that	experience	severe	lag	time.	2017.	or	purchase	a	new	phone.	2017	4	Released	on	May	15.113	(collectively.	iOS	11.2.	iOS	11.	on	December	20.	2017	3	Released	on	April	3.13.	2017	12	Released	on	December	2.19.	iOS	10.	iOS	11.110.3.211.32.0.	2017	2	Released	on	March	27.24.	2017	6	Released	on	September	26.	iOS	10.	purchase	a	new	battery.16.3.	Plaintiffs	would	not	have	purchased	an	iPhone	if	they	knew	the	truth	about	Apple’s	iPhone	power	management	system. Apple	falsely	represented	to	consumers	such	as	the	Plaintiffs	that	iOS	10	and	iOS	11	Updates	would	increase	iPhone	performance.	the	“iOS	10	Update”).1.35	(collectively.	2017	9	Released	on	October	31.	“iOS	11	Update”).2.212.1.	inter	alia.	2017 2 .	2017	7	Released	on	October	3.	and	prompted	consumers	such	as	the	named	Plaintiff	to	purchase	new	iPhones.38.3.	iOS	11.	iOS	11.	iOS	11.	These	designs	also	significantly	impaired	Plaintiffs’	ability	to	use	their	iPhones	normally.	2.	However.11.	These	designs	resulted	in.	2017	10	Released	on	November	9.	Plaintiffs	1	Released	on	January	23.	2017	13	Released	on	December	13.
at	the	time	of	purchase.	4.	Apple	failed	to	timely	disclose	to	New	York	consumers	such	as	Plaintiff	that	they	could	avoid	having	their	older	iPhones	throttled	by	avoiding	an	iOS	update.	if	they	knew	they	could	remedy	the	problem	by	purchasing	a	new	battery.	and	it	failed	to	make	such	disclosure	at	or	near	the	time	consumers	installed	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	updates.	In	addition	to	the	aforesaid	omissions	of	fact.	Plaintiffs	would	also	not	have	purchased	new	phones	after	installing	an	iOS	update.	5.	Apple	also	failed	to	inform	New	York	consumers	that	it	throttles	iPhone	performance	through	iOS	updates	due	to	battery	degradation	issues. That.	and	such	acts	constitute	gross	negligence	on	the	part	of	the	Defendant.	including	the	Plaintiffs.	Apple	touted	the	increased	iPhone	performance	that	would	result	from	installing	the	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates.	3 .	which	slowed	the	performance	of	their	older	iPhones.	Defendant	also	failed	to	timely	disclose	to	New	York	consumers	that	they	could	remedy	iPhone	slowdowns	resulting	from	iOS	updates	and	battery	degradation	issues	by	simply	purchasing	a	new	battery.	Instead	of	making	the	disclosures. These	actions	and	inactions	violate	the	New	York	General	Business	Law	§349	and	§350.	issues	related	to	the	iPhone	battery	degradation.	et	seq.	are	in	direct	and	material	breach	of	Plaintiffs’	contracts	with	Apple.	Apple	failed	to	disclose	to	New	York	consumers. Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3 would	not	have	updated	their	older	iPhones	if	they	knew	that	their	older	iPhones	would	experience	a	severe	slowdown	that	interferes	with	ordinary	use..
and	all	members	of	the	proposed	class	are	citizens	of	New	York.	and	is	founded	upon	28	U. Venue	in	this	District	is	proper	pursuant	to	28	U. Apple	is	a	publicly	traded	company	that	designs.	and	Apple	regularly	conducts	business	in	this	District. The	named	Plaintiff	is	a	victim	of	Apple’s	actions	as	alleged	herein.	The	representative	Plaintiff	resides	in	this	District	and	thousands	if	not	millions	of	New	York	consumers	have	been	injured	by	Defendant’s	violations.	The	representative	Plaintiff	is	a	citizen	of	New	York.S.	7.§1332(A)(1).	The	Defendant	is	a	corporation.	which	is	domiciled	in	the	State	of	California.	A	substantial	part	of	the	events	or	omissions	giving	rise	to	Plaintiffs’	claims	occurred	in	this	District.	manufactures	and	markets	mobile	communication	and	media	devices	and	personal	computers.	networking	solutions	and	third- 4 .	10.S.	including	Defendant’s	breach	of	contract	and	the	willful.	THE	PARTIES	8.	services. Subject-matter	jurisdiction	is	proper	in	the	Court.	New	York.	reckless. Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4 JURISDICTION	AND	VENUE	6.C.	§	1391.	accessories.	FACTUAL	ALLEGATIONS	11.	is	a	publicly	traded	company	incorporated	under	the	laws	of	the	Sate	of	California.	and	grossly	negligent	conduct.C. Defendant	Apple	Inc.	and	sells	a	variety	of	related	software.	9.	with	a	principal	place	of	business	in	that	State. Plaintiff	Victor	Mallh	is	a	citizen	of	the	United	States	and	a	resident	of	Queens	County.	Defendant	regularly	conducts	business	in	New	York.
These	malfunctions	include	but	are	not	limited	to	very	slow	operating	speeds.	12.	16.	Apple	represents	that	its	iOS	updates	will	increase	iPhone	performance.	slow	service	especially	when	using	applications	(“App”	or	“Apps”).	Consumers	have	no	control	over	what	Apple	places	into	its	iOS	updates.	2017. Prior	to	December	20.	Apple	admitted	that	it	intentionally	designed	iOS	10	and	iOS	11	Updates	to	limit	iPhone	performance	in	certain	circumstances.	However.	reduced	battery	life.	iPhones	and	services	related	to	iPhones. Plaintiffs’	and	other	consumers’	iPhones	experienced	significant	malfunctions	shortly	after	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates	were	installed.	screen	freezes	and	freezing	Apps	such	as	text	messaging	and	e-mail. Periodically.	15.	battery	issues	such	as	rapid	5 .	2017.	delayed	responses	to	touch	interactions.	The	Company’s	products	and	services	include.	inter	alia.	14.	Apple	releases	iOS	updates.	iOS	is	Apple’s	mobile	operating	system	that	serves	as	the	foundation	for	iOS	devices.	Apple	represented	that	increased	iPhone	performance	would	result	from	the	iOS	10	and	iOS	11	Updates.	delayed	App	launches. Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5 party	digital	content	and	applications.	Apple	strongly	encourages	iPhone	users	such	as	the	Plaintiffs	to	install	iOS	updates.	Apple	omitted	from	Plaintiffs	the	fact	that	it	intentionally	designed	its	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	to	slow	down	iPhone	performance	in	older	iPhones	with	degraded	batteries.	Defendant	omitted	from	Plaintiffs	the	fact	that	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	could	negatively	affect	iPhone	performance	and	functionality.	13. The	iPhone	is	Apple’s	line	of	smartphones	based	on	its	iOS	operating	system. On	December	20.
Apple	secretly	slowed	down	the	speed	of	older	iPhones	with	degraded	batteries	through	iOS	10	and	11	Updates.	and	should	have.	rapid	decline	in	battery	power.	Apple	engaged	in	deliberate	CPU	throttling	of	older	iPhones	with	degraded	batteries	through	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	without	first	informing	iPhone	users	of	the	risks	involved	with	installing	such	iOS	updates.	However.	and	sudden/random	iPhone	shutdown	since	installing	the	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates. Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6 decline	in	battery	power	and	sudden/random	iPhone	shutdown/restart.	Apple	could	have.	However.	18. Instead	of	being	transparent	and	truthful	with	consumers	regarding	issues	related	to	batteries	in	iPhones.	19.	Apple	could	have.	17. By	concealing	the	truth	as	to	why	older	iPhones	performed	poorly	after	the	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	were	installed.	and/or	random	App	shutdowns.	which	led	consumers	such	as	the	named	Plaintiff	to	believe	that	they	needed	to	purchase	a	new	iPhone. Apple	claims	that	its	intentional	throttling	of	performance	in	older	iPhones	was	designed	to	offset	problems	related	to	older	batteries	and	iPhone	shutdowns.	Apple	chose	to	keep	their	practice	of	throttling	iPhone	performance	a	secret.	and	should	have.	timely	6 .	consumers	such	as	the	named	Plaintiff	have	experienced	battery	malfunctions	such	as	reduced	battery	life.	Apple	led	consumers	such	as	the	named	Plaintiff	to	believe	that	they	needed	to	purchase	a	new	iPhone.	timely	informed	consumers	that	a	new	battery	would	repair	malfunctions	related	to	battery	degradation	in	older	iPhones.	glitches.	and	without	giving	iPhone	users	the	option	to	decide	on	whether	to	use	the	power	management	techniques/features	that	Apple	implemented	through	such	iOS	updates.
Apple	failed	to	timely	inform	consumers	such	as	the	Plaintiffs	of	these	remedies	or	to	employ	other	sufficient	compensating	measures. Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7 informed	Plaintiffs	and	other	consumers	about	the	risks	involved	with	installing	iOS	10	and	iOS	11	Updates.	Apple	utterly	failed	to	do	this	with	its	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	21. Although	installing	an	iOS	update	is	voluntary	in	theory.	but	also	because	the	Apps	on	the	iPhones	would	eventually	become	outdated	and	the	iPhone	user	would	not	be	able	to	update	the	App	and	have	access	to	the	updated	App	features	until	the	iPhone	was	running	the	updated	iOS	software.	Consumers	also	rely	on	the	information	that	Apple	provides	about	its	iOS	updates.	20.	and	consumers	are	forced	to	rely	on	Apple	to	protect	their	iPhones.	This	is	due	in	large	part	to	security	concerns.	Apple	controls	when	and	how	iOS	updates	are	implemented. The	Plaintiffs	and	other	consumers	cannot	and	do	not	control	how	Apple	designs	and	implements	its	iOS	updates.	Apple	has	been	intentionally	limiting	older	iPhone	performance	in	certain	circumstances	through	its	iOS	updates. From	at	least	January	23.	Consumers	are	forced	to	rely	on	Apple’s	design	choices.	consumers	eventually	are	forced	to	update	their	iPhone	software.	Therefore.	Defendant	fails	to	warn	consumers	that	an	iOS	update	is	irreversible.	22.	it	was	and	it	is	incumbent	upon	Apple	not	only	to	implement	updates	that	improve	iPhone	performance.	iPhone	users	cannot	revert	their	iOS	software	to	previous	versions	of	iOS.	Upon	information	and	belief.	7 .	2017.	Although	numerous	remedies	for	iPhone	slowdowns	were	available	and	known	to	Apple	at	all	times.	but	also	to	warn	consumers	about	the	risks	involved	with	installing	updates.
as	Plaintiffs	were	deprived	of	their	opportunity	to	meaningfully	consider	and	address	issues	related	to	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates	and	degraded	iPhone	batteries. Apple	negligently.	By	falsely	representing	that	the	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	would	enhance	performance	of	all	iPhones	and	by	concealing	the	fact	that	Defendant	intentionally	limited	the	performance	of	older	iPhones	through	its	iOS	10	and	11	Updates.	which	led	consumers	such	as	the	named	Plaintiff	to	believe	that	they	needed	to	purchase	a	new	iPhone.	which	was	after	Plaintiffs	and	other	consumers	installed	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates	to	their	iPhones. Apple	could	have	prevented	the	confusion	it	created	surrounding	the	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	by	revealing	the	full	truth	about	the	iOS	updates.	when	his	iPhone	failed	to	function	properly	during	critical	moments.	among	other	times.	Apple	also	caused	consumers.	to	suffer	severe	emotional	harm	while	learning	that	their	iPhones	were	among	those	negatively	affected	by	the	iOS	10	and	11	Updates.	The	named	Plaintiff	suffered	severe	emotional	harm.	including	the	Plaintiffs. Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8 23.	Apple	could	have	and	should	have	provided	Plaintiffs	and	other	consumers	with	this	material	information.	24.	to	inform	consumers	that	Apple	has	been	intentionally	limiting	older	iPhone	performance	in	certain	circumstances	through	its	iOS	updates.	2017.	8 .	Apple	caused	the	Plaintiffs	and	others	harm	by	failing	to	timely	inform	them	about	these	practices.	Apple	fraudulently	induced	consumers	such	as	the	Plaintiffs	to	install	iOS	10	and/or	11	Updates.	recklessly	and	willfully	waited	until	December	20.	Apple	was	also	not	forthcoming	about	how	to	fix	the	problems	that	consumers	experienced	after	installing	the	relevant	iOS	updates.	Apple	subjected	Plaintiffs	and	other	consumers	to	actual	injury.	but	Apple	failed	to	do	so.
Mallh	wanted	to	ensure	that	his	new	iPhone	would	not	have	the	9 .	but	the	problems	mentioned	above	persisted.	screen	freezes	and	freezing	applications	such	as	text	messaging	and	e- mail.	2016.	He	received	his	iPhone	X	on	November	8.	which	prompted	him	to	become	interested	in	what	he	believed	was	a	more	advanced	iPhone.	This	was	tremendously	inconvenient.	Mallh	installed	an	iOS	10	update	to	his	iPhone.	Mallh’s	ordinary	use	of	his	iPhone.	Mallh.	Mallh	decided	to	purchase	the	iPhone	X	instead	of	the	iPhone	8	because	Apple	represented	it	as	the	top	iPhone	model	and	Mr.	were	intentionally	caused	by	Apple.	freezing	and	inability	to	transmit	messages	and	images.	and	random	application	shutdown.	Mr.	Mallh	began	having	major	issues	with	this	iPhone	very	shortly	after	the	purchase.	and	ultimately	the	malfunctions	with	his	iPhone	6s	Plus	were	never	repaired.	2017.	Mallh	spent	a	significant	amount	of	time	speaking	with	T-Mobile	customer	service	representatives	and	Apple	customer	service	representatives/tech	support	in	an	effort	to	correct	issues	with	his	iPhone.	Mallh	pre-ordered	an	iPhone	X	on	October	27.	unbeknownst	to	Mr.	reduced	battery	life.	Mallh	continued	to	update	his	iPhone.	slow	service	especially	when	using	applications.	Mallh	experienced	problems	including	but	not	limited	to	very	slow	operating	speed.	Mallh	followed	this	advice	and	paid	the	applicable	fees.	battery	malfunctions	such	as	rapid	decline	in	battery	power	and	sudden/random	iPhone	shutdown/restart.	Mr. Plaintiff	Victor	Mallh	purchased	an	iPhone	6s	Plus	64GB	on	March	30. Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9 25.	Apple	advised	Mr.	Mr.	glitches.	The	problems	began	immediately	after	Mr.	Mr.	Mallh	to	trade	in	his	iPhone	for	a	refurbished	iPhone	to	correct	the	problems.	Mr.	Mr.	These	problems	significantly	interfered	with	Mr.	which.	2017.	The	problems	became	worse	as	Mr.
Mallh	by	intentionally	hiding	material	information	from	him.	Mr.	Mallh	would	not	have	purchased	an	iPhone.	Mallh	would	have	declined	to	install	the	relevant	iOS	update	to	his	iPhone	6s	Plus	if	he	knew	the	truth	about	Apple’s	actions	and	about	the	risks	of	installing	the	iOS	update.	Apple	utterly	failed	to	inform	Mr.	Mallh	suffered	monetary	damages	as	well	as	severe	emotional	distress.	Equally	egregious.Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10 issues	that	he	dealt	with	while	using	the	iPhone	6s	Plus.	The	Plaintiff	would	not	have	purchased	an	iPhone	if	he	knew	the	truth	about	Apple’s	iOS	update(s).	Mallh	was	also	unaware	that	he	could	have	remedied	the	issues	with	his	iPhone	6s	Plus	simply	by	purchasing	a	new	battery.	2017.	Mallh	would	not	have	purchased	an	iPhone	at	all	if	he	knew	the	truth	about	Apple’s	power	management	system/techniques/features.	Mr.	Apple	severely	harmed	Mr.	Mallh	who	have	already	purchased	a	new	iPhone	as	a	result	of	Apple’s	misrepresentations	and	omissions.	Mr.	Mr.	Mr.	Mallh	would	not	have	spent	approximately	$1.	Mallh	experienced	issues	with	his	iPhone	while	in	cold	weather.	26.	Mr.00	to	$29.00	to	remedy	a	10 . On	December	28th.00	to	purchase	the	iPhone	X	if	he	had	known	that	he	could	have	repaired	the	malfunctions	associated	with	his	iPhone	6s	Plus	by	purchasing	a	new	battery.000.	Apple	continues	to	charge	consumers	$29.	Mallh	was	not	aware	that	he	could	have	avoided	the	issues	with	his	iPhone	6s	Plus	by	declining	to	install	the	relevant	iOS	update.	Mr.	if	he	knew	the	truth	about	iPhone	performance	in	cold	temperatures.00.	Additionally.	Mr.	Apple	announced	that	it	would	be	reducing	the	price	of	an	out-of-warranty	iPhone	battery	replacement	from	$79.	or	he	would	not	have	paid	as	much	for	an	iPhone.	Mallh	of	this	information.	this	is	unhelpful	to	consumers	such	as	Mr.	In	fact.	However.
had	they	known	the	truth	about	Apples	operations.	28.	Mallh	and	class	members	from	making	informed	decisions	regarding	updating	their	iPhones.	including	but	not	limited	to	throttling	iPhone	performance.	and	are	being.	29.	and	willfully	prevented	Mr.	Apple	intentionally	hid	material	information	from	consumers	such	as	Plaintiffs.	or	they	would	not	have	paid	as	much	money	for	an	iPhone.	impacted	by	the	Defendant’s	actions.	There	are	questions	of	law	and	fact	common	to	the	class.	deprived	consumers	of	the	ability	to	make	an	informed	decision	about	whether	they	wanted	to	update	their	iPhones	and	use	the	power	management	techniques/features	that	Apple	implemented. Apple	negligently. This	suit	is	maintainable	as	a	class	action.	27.	Apple’s	willful	conduct	was	and	continues	to	be	motivated	by	profit	for	Apple.	recklessly.	The	Plaintiff	believes	that	the	class	that	he	proposes	to	represent	is	so	numerous	that	joinder	of	all	members	is	impracticable.	30.	The	Plaintiff	asserts	that	millions	of	New	York	consumers	have	been.	and	is	now	egregiously	charging	consumers	for	a	battery	replacement.	and	it	was	not	designed	to	protect	consumers.	11 .Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11 problem	that	Apple	created.	and	replacing	their	iPhone	batteries. None	of	the	Plaintiffs	would	have	purchased	an	iPhone	had	they	known	that	Apple’s	representations	regarding	iOS	update(s)	were	false	and	misleading.	The	Plaintiff	will	fairly	and	adequately	protect	the	interests	of	the	class.	and	the	claims	of	the	named	Plaintiff	are	typical	of	the	claims	of	the	class.	among	other	things. None	of	the	Plaintiffs	would	have	purchased	an	iPhone.	replacing	their	iPhones.
iOS	10.	such	that	the	questions	of	law	and	fact	are	common	to	all	members	of	the	class	and	any	subclass.	iPhone	6.2.	or	otherwise	modified.2.	All	members	of	the	class	and	any	subclass	were	and	are	similarly	affected	by	the	violations	of	the	law	and	the	relief	sought	herein	is	for	the	benefit	of	Plaintiffs	and	members	of	the	class	and	any	subclass.2.	iOS	11.	previously	owned.	the	Plaintiff	brings	this	class	action	and	seeks	certification	of	the	claims	and	certain	issues	in	this	action	on	behalf	of	a	class	defined	as:	All	New	York	State	residents	who	currently	own.	36.2.0.2.	iOS	10.	34.	The	definition	also	includes	owners	and	users	of	iPhones	7	and	7	plus.	Defendant	uniformly	violated	the	aforesaid	NY	GBL	Sections	as	to	all	members	of	the	class.1.1	Updates.3.	which	received	iOS	11.	and	further	states:	12 .3.Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12 31.	iOS	10.	iPhone	6s.2	and	11.	iOS	11.	iOS	11.2.	iOS	11.1. Pursuant	to	Federal	Rule	of	Civil	Procedure	23.	expanded.0.	iOS	10.	and	iOS	11.3.	iOS	11.	35.3.1.1.	iOS	11.1.	iOS	11.	and	iPhone	6s	Plus.	COUNT	ONE	NYGBL	§349	and	§350.	The	Plaintiff	re-alleges	and	incorporate	by	reference	the	allegations	set	forth	in	each	preceding	paragraph	of	this	Complaint	as	if	fully	set	forth	herein.	which	received	any	of	the	following	updates:	iOS	10.3.	currently	use.0.1.3.	and/or	previously	used.	Deceptive	Or	Misleading	Practices	37.1.	including	any	subclass	arising	out	of	the	reckless	and	willful	failure	to	inform	consumers	of	material	information	related	to	their	iPhones.2.	Plaintiff	reserves	his	right	to	amend	the	class	definition	if	further	investigation	and	discovery	indicates	that	the	class	definition	should	be	narrowed.1.	ET	SEQ.	any	of	the	following:	iPhone	SE.
39.	and	significant	time	and	effort	expended.	and	this	conduct	caused	Plaintiffs	harm.	Apple	negligently.	recklessly	and	willfully	withheld	material	information	regarding	the	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	until	December	20.	and	ultimately	led	him	to	believe	that	he	needed	to	purchase	an	iPhone	X.	By	way	of	example.	For	that	the	Defendant	Apple	engaged	in	conduct	that	was	consumer	oriented	and	did	so	in	a	manner.	caused	him	to	lose	functionality	of	his	iPhone.	Defendant	advertised	in	a	misleading	manner.	including	by	falsely	advertising	and	falsely	representing	to	Plaintiffs	that	iOS	10	and	iOS	11	Updates	would	increase	their	iPhone	performance.	40.	Plaintiff	suffered	significant	losses.	As	a	result	of	Defendant’s	representations	and	omissions.	13 .	2017.	Additionally.000.	which	cost	him	approximately	$1.	41.Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13 38.	fraudulently	induced	him	to	install	the	relevant	iOS	updates	to	his	iPhone.	Plaintiff	lost	the	use	and	functionality	of	an	iPhone	and	suffered	severe	emotional	distress.	The	Defendant	materially	misled	the	Plaintiffs	in	the	manner	discussed	above.	as	to	the	named	Plaintiff.	including	funds	expended	for	a	new	iPhone.	which	was	materially	deceptive	and	misleading	to	consumers.	which	fraudulently	induced	the	named	Plaintiff	to	install	the	relevant	iOS	updates.	and	by	failing	to	timely	and	conspicuously	disclose	information	regarding	the	risks	of	installing	iOS	10	and	11	Updates.	caused	Plaintiff	to	lose	functionality	of	his	iPhone.	and	ultimately	led	him	to	believe	that	he	needed	to	purchase	an	iPhone	X.	unforeseen	fees.	the	Defendant	made	representations	and	omissions	regarding	its	operations	that	prevented	Plaintiff	from	making	an	informed	decision.00.
and	ultimately	led	him	to	believe	that	he	needed	to	purchase	an	iPhone	X.	at	all	the	times	relevant	herein.	caused	Plaintiff	to	lose	functionality	of	his	iPhone.	and	further	states:	43.	The	Defendant	failed	to	deliver	on	its	promise	to	provide	Plaintiffs	with	the	information	necessary	to	keep	their	iPhones	functional	for	normal	use.	which	fraudulently	induced	Plaintiff	to	install	the	relevant	iOS	updates.	Defendant	breached	its	agreement	with	Plaintiff	when	it	failed	to	provide	him	with	material	information.	45.	46.	and	Apple	breached	this	covenant	when	it	acted	in	bad	faith	and	solely	for	the	purpose	of	profit	disregarding	the	financial	and	emotional	harm	incurred	by	the	Plaintiffs.Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14 COUNT	TWO	Breach	of	Contract	42.	47.	was	under	an	implied	covenant	of	good	faith	and	fair	dealings.	14 .	The	Defendant	failed	in	its	obligation	to	provide	Plaintiffs	with	this	information.	The	Defendant	accepted	significant	funds	from	Plaintiffs	on	the	promises	that	it	provide	functional	products	and	services.	The	Defendant	failed	to	deliver	on	its	promise	to	provide	Plaintiffs	with	the	information	necessary	to	allow	Plaintiffs	the	opportunity	to	meaningfully	consider	and	address	issues	related	to	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates	and	degraded	iPhone	batteries.	The	Defendant.	44.	and	Apple	was	under	contractual	obligations	to	provide	the	Plaintiffs	with	material	information	related	to	their	iPhones	and	iOS	update(s).	The	Plaintiff	re-alleges	and	incorporates	by	reference	the	allegations	set	forth	in	each	preceding	paragraph	of	this	Complaint	as	if	fully	set	forth	herein.
the	duty	to	provide	Plaintiffs	with	the	material	information	necessary	to	allow	Plaintiffs	the	opportunity	to	meaningfully	consider	and	address	issues	related	to	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates	and	degraded	iPhone	batteries.	and	the	duty	to	timely	inform	Plaintiffs	of	how	to	repair	the	malfunctions	that	Plaintiffs	experienced	as	a	result	of	installing	the	relevant	iOS	updates.	51.	COUNT	THREE	NEGLIGENCE	49.	and	further	states:	50.	the	duty	to	disclose	to	Plaintiffs	that	Apple	intentionally	designed	its	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	so	as	to	slow	down	iPhone	performance	in	older	iPhones	with	degraded	batteries.	and	significant	time	and	effort	expended.	Additionally.Defendant	owed	the	Plaintiffs	duties	including	but	not	limited	to	the	following:	the	duty	to	timely	warn	Plaintiffs	that	Defendant	intentionally	limited	the	performance	of	older	iPhones	through	its	iOS	10	and	11	Updates.	the	Plaintiff	and	similarly	situated	others	suffered	significant	losses.	the	duty	to	timely	warn	Plaintiffs	that	the	relevant	iOS	updates	could	negatively	and	significantly	impact	iPhone	performance.	unforeseen	fees.	such	as	informing	Plaintiffs	that	a	new	battery	would	improve	the	performance	of	their	iPhone.	Apple	breached	its	duties	to	Plaintiffs	when	it	intentionally	hid	material	information	from	Plaintiffs	and	failed	to	timely	warn	Plaintiffs	of	Apple’s	practices	15 .	including	but	not	limited	to	funds	expended	for	a	new	iPhone.Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15 48.	Plaintiff	lost	the	use	and	functionality	of	an	iPhone.	As	a	result	of	Defendant’s	representations	and	omissions.	The	Plaintiff	re-alleges	and	incorporates	by	reference	the	allegations	set	forth	in	each	preceding	paragraph	of	this	Complaint	as	if	fully	set	forth	herein.
and	further	states:	54.	and	severe	emotional	distress.	its	failure	to	timely	provide	Plaintiffs	with	the	material	information	necessary	to	meaningfully	consider	and	address	issues	related	to	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates	and	degraded	iPhone	batteries.	caused	the	Plaintiff	and	similarly	situated	others	significant	losses	including	but	not	limited	to	impaired	use	of	older	iPhones.	52.	The	Plaintiff	re-alleges	and	incorporate	by	reference	the	allegations	set	forth	in	each	preceding	paragraph	of	this	Complaint	as	if	fully	set	forth	herein.	COUNT	FOUR	Gross	Negligence	53.	willful	and	reckless	disregard	for	the	rights	of	consumers.	willful	and	reckless	disregard	for	the	rights	of	consumers.	55.	the	Plaintiff	and	similarly	situated	16 .	and	its	failure	to	warn	consumers.	Plaintiffs	suffered	harm	in	an	amount	to	be	determined	at	trial.	and	without	timely	providing	Plaintiffs	with	the	information	necessary	to	allow	Plaintiffs	the	opportunity	to	meaningfully	consider	and	address	issues	related	to	iOS	10	and/or	iOS	11	Updates	and	degraded	iPhone	batteries.	As	a	result	of	Defendant’s	gross	negligence	and	wanton.	That	Defendant’s	wanton.	money	spent	on	new	iPhones.Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16 and	the	risks	involved	with	installing	the	relevant	iOS	updates.	As	a	direct	and	proximate	result	of	Defendant’s	breach.	or	take	other	reasonable	protective	measures.	Apple	engaged	in	deliberate	CPU	throttling	of	older	iPhones	with	degraded	batteries	through	iOS	10	and	11	Updates	without	first	informing	iPhone	users	of	the	risks	involved	with	installing	such	iOS	updates.
! Require	the	Defendant	to	conspicuously	inform	consumers	before	any	iOS	update	that	iOS	updates	may	slow	down	iPhone	performance	and	explain	to	consumers	the	reasons	why	the	slow	down	may	occur.	Because	Apple’s	gross	negligence	was	wanton.	! Require	the	Defendant	to	conspicuously	inform	consumers	before	any	iOS	update	that	a	new	battery	will	remedy	iPhone	slowdown	issues	related	to	battery	degradation.	et.	respectfully	prays	that	this	Honorable	Court:	! Order	that	the	Defendant	discontinue	its	violations	of	New	York	General	Business	Law	§349.Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17 others	suffered	actual	harm	in	the	form	of	impaired	use	of	older	iPhones.	REQUEST	FOR	RELIEF	WHEREFORE.	56.	willful	and	in	reckless	disregard	for	the	rights	of	consumers	and	their	iPhones.	on	behalf	of	himself	and	similarly-situated	Plaintiffs.	! An	order	certifying	the	class	of	New	York	consumers	as	defined	hereinabove.	! An	order	requiring	Apple	to	promptly	notify	consumers	of	any	potential	remedy	to	their	iPhone	before	consumers	purchase	a	new	iPhone.	! An	award	of	actual	damages	suffered	by	the	Plaintiffs.	seq.	§350.	! Order	that	Defendant	refund	Plaintiffs	for	money	spent	on	new	phones	that	they	purchased	as	a	result	of	Defendant’s	actions	and	inactions.	punitive	damages	should	also	be	awarded	against	Apple	in	an	amount	to	be	awarded	at	trial.	money	spent	on	new	iPhones.	and	severe	emotional	distress.	! Issue	a	temporary	restraining	order	barring	Apple	from	charging	consumers	for	new	iPhone	batteries.	! Order	that	Defendant	pay	Plaintiffs	for	all	of	their	emotional	distress.	your	Plaintiff.	FORTHWITH.	! An	order	enjoining	Apple	from	engaging	in	the	unlawful	violations	of	the	law	complained	of	herein.	17 .
com	Tel	203-535-4636	Dated:	01/04/17	18 .Case 1:18-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18 ! An	award	of	punitive	damages	against	Defendant.	Maryland	20707	law@herminalaw.	Wilson	Avenue	Glendale.	Respectfully	Submitted.com	Tel	301-776-2003	Fax	301-490-7913	Gregory	Allen.	THE	PLAINTIFFS.	Esq.	Esq.	Law	Office	of	Gregory	Allen	120	W.	HERMINA	LAW	GROUP	Laurel	Lakes	Executive	Park	8327	Cherry	Lane	Laurel.	! An	award	of	costs	and	reasonable	attorneys	fees.	California	91203	greg@gjallenlaw.	JURY	TRIAL	DEMAND	The	Plaintiff	respectfully	requests	a	jury	trial.	BY:________/s/_______________________	Their	Counsel	John	Hermina.	and	! Any	such	other	and	further	relief	as	to	this	Court	may	appear	just	and	proper.

References: §349
	§350
	§	1391
	§349
	§350
	§349
	§350