Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/367963097/Lazarus-Aberman-Margolis-Brodsky-and-Childs-vs-Apple-Inc
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 17:34:35
Document Index: 543506126

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1332', '§ 1391', '§ 56', '§ 56', '§ 56', '§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 501']

Lazarus, Aberman, Margolis, Brodsky and Childs vs. Apple Inc. | Class Action | I Phone
In a suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, five plaintiffs say their iPhones slowed after software updates. Four of the five bought new iPhones because of the slowing, they say in the suit.
saveSave Lazarus, Aberman, Margolis, Brodsky and Childs vs.... For Later
BENJAMIN LAZARUS, JEFFREY
ABERMAN, STEPHEN MARGOLIS,
SANDY BRODSKY and VICTORIA
CHILDS, individually and on behalf of all
Plaintiffs, Case No. _______
PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Benjamin Lazarus, Jeffrey Aberman, Stephen Margolis, Sandy Brodsky and
Victoria Childs, (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Classes defined
below, allege the following against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) based upon personal knowledge with
respect to themselves and on information and belief derived from, among other things,
investigation of counsel and review of public documents as to all other matters:
1. Plaintiffs bring this class action case against Apple for its failure to disclose that
Apple has been purposely slowing down the processor of its iPhone 5, iPhone 6 and certain iPhone
7 models through operating system software updates. On December 20, 2017, Apple confirmed
that the company has been slowing the performance of these iPhone devices.
2. Apple disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and
sub-classes by its failure to have previously disclosed that it was intentionally slowing down
performance of older devices to compensate for battery degradation in order to push people to
upgrade their iPhones faster and failed to provide iPhone owners with better ways to accomplish
the same goal such as replacing the batteries of an older iPhone model.
3. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful actions, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed
class and sub-classes have been injured.
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount in controversy exceeds $5 million exclusive of
interest and costs. There are more than 100 putative class members. And, at least some members of
the proposed Class have a different citizenship from Apple.
5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple because Plaintiff Benjamin Lazarus
resides in this District.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Apple does
substantial business in the State of New York and within this District and advertises in this District
and a substantial part of the events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in
7. Plaintiff Benjamin Lazarus (“Lazarus”) is a resident of the State of New York. Prior
to purchasing an iPhone 7, Lazarus owned and operated an iPhone 6. Over time, Lazarus noticed
significant slowdowns of the speed in the operation of his iPhone 6 as well as other operational
issues that negatively affected the performance of his iPhone 6 after certain iOS updates were issued
to his phone. As a result of the diminished performance of his iPhone 6, Lazarus purchased the
iPhone 7. Presently, his iPhone 7 is experiencing the same slowdowns and operational issues that
he experienced with his iPhone 6.
8. Plaintiff Jeffrey Aberman (“Aberman”) is a resident of the State of New Jersey.
Aberman owns and operates an iPhone 6s. Over time, Aberman has noticed significant slowdowns
of the speed in the operation of his iPhone 6s as well as other operational issues that negatively
affect the performance of his iPhone 6s.
9. Plaintiff Stephen Margolis (“Margolis”) is a resident of the State of Florida. Prior
to purchasing an iPhone 7, Margolis owned and operated an iPhone 6. Over time, Margolis noticed
to his phone. As a result of the diminished performance of his iPhone 6, Margolis purchased the
10. Sandy Brodsky (“Brodsky”) is a resident of the State of Florida. Prior to purchasing
an iPhone 7 Plus, Brodsky owned and operated an iPhone 6 Plus. Over time, Brodsky noticed
significant slowdowns of the speed in the operation of his iPhone 6 Plus as well as other operational
issues that negatively affected the performance of her iPhone 6 Plus after certain iOS updates were
issued to her phone. As a result of the diminished performance of her iPhone 6 Plus, Brodsky
purchased the iPhone 7 Plus.
11. Plaintiff Victoria Childs (“Childs”) is a resident of the State of Florida. Prior to
purchasing an iPhone 8, Childs owned and operated an iPhone 7. Over time, Childs noticed
significant slowdowns of the speed in the operation of her iPhone 7 as well as other operational
issues that negatively affected the performance of her iPhone 7 after certain iOS updates were issued
to her phone. As a result of the diminished performance of her iPhone 7, Childs purchased the
12. Defendant Apple is a corporation that was created under the laws of the State of
California and has its principal place of business in Cupertino, California.
13. In early 2017 Apple iPhone owners of the iPhone 5, 6, 6s, and 6s Plus and 7 devices
complained to Apple that their phones were spontaneously shutting down, even though they had
sufficient battery. This usually occurred when the user was using your phone for something that
required a burst of power — like in the middle of a game, or when downloading an app. In order
to fix this bug, Apple introduced an update to its operating system software, iOS 10.2.1. This update
fixed the shutdown issue in some cases but also slowed those iPhones down significantly causing
Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes to experience issues such as delays in
typing in messages and the lag in the loading of emails to name just a few.
14. In a Reddit post, in and around the second week in December, an iPhone user
suggested that the iPhone battery might be to blame for the slowness problems. He stated the
My iPhone 6S has been very slow these past few weeks, and even after updating multiple
times, it was still slow. Couldn’t figure out why, but just thought that iOS 11 was still awful
to me. Then I used my brother’s iPhone 6 Plus and his was... faster than mine? This is when
I knew something was wrong. So, I did some research, and decided to replace my battery.
Wear level was somewhere around 20% on my old battery. I did a Geekbench score, and
found I was getting 1466 Single and 2512 Multi. This did not change whether I had low
power mode on or off. After changing my battery, I did another test to check if it was just a
placebo. Nope. 2526 Single and 4456 Multi. From what I can tell, Apple slows down phones
when their battery gets too low, so you can still have a full days charge. This also means
your phone might be very slow for no discernible reason. Check your Geekbench scores and
see what you get if your phone is still slow!
15. Following this Reddit post, John Poole, founder of Primate Labs and Geekbench
developer, analyzed data of approximately 100,000 phones with different iOS versions. He looked
at the versions before Apple fixed the bug and at versions after Apple fixed the bug and discovered
that the phone processors slowed down after the system update and that the problem was widespread
and “likely to get worse as phones (and their batteries) continue to age.”
16. It took a viral Redditt post and an independent investigation by Poole for Apple to
finally admit that Apple had intentionally slowed the performance of older iPhones stating the
following on December 20, 2017:
Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which includes overall performance
and prolonging the life of their devices. Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of
supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as
they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its
instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting
down during these conditions. We’ve now extended that feature to iPhone 7 with iOS 11.2,
17. In other words, Apple slowed down the processors in order to avoid overloading the
batteries. While Apple’s battery explanation may be legitimate, Apple was anything but
forthcoming about the slower speeds until December 20, 2017 and failed to disclose that this
diminished performance could be remedied by replacing the battery in older iPhone models.
18. Apple purposefully concealed, fraudulently omitted and/or failed to disclose the fact
that a battery replacement would improve the performance of older iPhones to require consumers
to purchase newer iPhone models.
19. Had Plaintiffs been informed by Apple that a simple battery replacement would have
improved the performance of their iPhones, Plaintiffs would have chosen to replace their batteries
which was clearly a more cost effective method rather than upgrading to a new iPhone that was
20. In addition, Apple has failed now and in the past to give any explanation as to why
their older iPhones become a lot more sluggish after a new iPhone model comes out. Apple’s
admission’s was evidence of Apple’s practice to get iPhone users to upgrade to a new phone.
21. In addition to Apple’s failure to inform Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class
and sub-classes that a simple battery replacement would improve their iPhone’s performance,
Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed classes were never given the option to choose
whether they preferred to have their iPhones slower than normal and never gave consent for Apple
to slow down their iPhones.
22. Apple’s wrongful actions directly and proximately caused the interference and loss
of value to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes’ iPhones causing them to
suffer economic harm as well as other harm for which they are entitled to compensation for,
including replacement of old iPhone; loss of use; loss of value; purchase of new batteries;
ascertainable losses in the form of deprivation of the value of their iPhone; and overpayment of
their iPhones in that Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes did not get what
23. Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and as representatives of all others who
are similarly situated. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(4), Plaintiffs seek
certification of a Nationwide class defined as follows:
All persons residing in the United States who (1) own or have owned an iPhone
model older than the iPhone 8 that is or was experiencing performance problems as
a result of Apple’s iOS updates or (2) have owned iPhone models older than the
iPhone 8 and have replaced them with a new device because they were experiencing
performance problems as a result of Apple’s iOS updates (the “Nationwide Class”).
24. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and in the alternative to claims asserted on behalf of
the Nationwide Class, Plaintiffs assert claims under the laws of the individual States, and on behalf
of separate statewide sub-classes, defined as follows:
All persons residing in New York who (1) own or have owned an iPhone model
older than the iPhone 8 that is or was experiencing performance problems as a result
of Apple’s iOS updates or (2) have owned iPhone models older than the iPhone 8
and have replaced them with a new device because they were experiencing
performance problems as a result of Apple’s iOS updates (the “Statewide Classes”).
All persons residing in New Jersey who (1) own or have owned an iPhone model
All persons residing in Florida who (1) own or have owned an iPhone model older
than the iPhone 8 that is or was experiencing performance problems as a result of
Apple’s iOS updates or (2) have owned iPhone models older than the iPhone 8 and
have replaced them with a new device because they were experiencing performance
problems as a result of Apple’s iOS updates (the “Statewide Classes”).
25. Excluded from each of the above Classes are any of Apple’s officers, directors and
board members; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; and the
judges to whom this case is assigned and their immediate family.
26. Plaintiffs hereby reserve the right to amend or modify the class definition with
greater specificity or division after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery.
27. Each of the proposed Classes meets the criteria for certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(4).
28. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Consistent with Rule 23(a)(1), the members
of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that the joinder of all members is
impractical. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time,
Plaintiffs believe the proposed Class comprises millions of members. Class members may be
identified through objective means. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action
by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail,
electronic mail, internet postings, and/or published notice.
29. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(2) and with 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement, this action involves common questions of
law and fact that predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members. The common
a. Whether Apple failed to disclose that its iOS updates caused slowdowns in older
iPhone model’s performance;
b. Whether Apple interfered or otherwise lowered the use or value of older iPhone
c. Whether Apple’s iOS modifications were implemented in order to profit from
Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed classes by inducing them to purchase
new iPhones to replace their older iPhone models;
e. Whether Apple is subject to liability for fraudulently concealing material facts from
Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed classes;
f. Whether Apple’s conduct constituted deceptive trade practices under state law;
g. Whether Apple was unjustly enriched as a result of its fraudulent conduct, such that
it would be inequitable for Apple to retain benefits conferred upon it by Plaintiffs
and other members of the proposed classes;
h. Whether Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed classes were injured and
suffered damages or other acceptable losses because of Apple’s fraudulent behavior;
i. Whether Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed classes are entitled to relief.
30. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3),
Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the other Class members. Plaintiffs’ damages and injuries
are akin to the other Class members and Plaintiffs seek relief consistent with the relief of the Class.
31. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4),
Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because Plaintiffs are members of the Class and
are committed to pursuing this matter against Apple to obtain relief for the Class. Plaintiffs have
no conflict of interest with the Class. Plaintiffs’ Counsel are competent and experienced in litigating
class actions, including privacy litigation. Plaintiffs intend to vigorously prosecute this case and
will fairly and adequately protect the Class’ interests.
32. Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P23(b)(3), a
class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class
action. The quintessential purpose of the class action mechanism is to permit litigation against
wrongdoers even when damages to individual plaintiffs may not be sufficient to justify individual
litigation. Here, the damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes are
relatively small compared to the burden and expense required to individually litigate their claims
against Apple, and thus, individual litigation to redress Apple’s wrongful conduct would be
impracticable. Individual litigation by each Class member would also strain the court system.
Individual litigation creates the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases
the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action device
economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
33. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Class certification is also appropriate under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (c). Defendant, through its uniform conduct, has acted or refused to act
on grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole, making injunctive and declaratory relief
appropriate to the Class as a whole.
34. Likewise, particular issues under Rule 23(c)(4) are appropriate for certification
because such claims present only particular, common issues, the resolution of which would advance
the disposition of this matter and the parties’ interests therein.
35. Finally, all members of the proposed Classes are readily ascertainable by records
maintained by Apple. Using this information, the members of the Class can be identified and their
contact information ascertained for purposes of providing notice to the Class.
(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE NATIONWIDE CLASS, OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFFS AND THE STATE CLASSES)
36. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
37. Prior to and at the time that Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes
decided to purchase an upgraded iPhone device, the Defendant knew and had full knowledge and
information that its iOS updates would slow down the performance of their older model iPhone and
that a simple batter replacement would improve the performance.
38. At all relevant times herein the Defendant, who had a duty to disclose the above
information, intentionally concealed and/or failed to disclose the aforementioned material facts to
the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes.
39. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes did in fact rely on the
Defendant to disclose this information which the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes
were unaware of at the time of the purchase of their upgraded iPhone device.
40. Had Defendant disclosed that their old iPhones could have easily been fixed with a
replacement battery, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes would not have
purchased new iPhones devices.
41. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant’s material omissions, Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed class and sub-classes suffered ascertainable losses consisting of the
purchase price of new iPhone devices.
42. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
43. Plaintiffs’ and members of the proposed class and sub-classes entered into implied
contracts with Apple, when they purchased their iPhones, to which Apple agreed to not purposefully
interfere with Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes’ usage or speed.
44. Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes fully performed their
obligations under the implied contracts with Apple.
45. Defendant breached the implied contracts it had made with the Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed class and sub-classes by purposefully slowing down older iPhone models
when new models came out and by failing to properly disclose that at the time the parties entered
46. The damages to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and sub-classes as
described herein were the direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breaches of these implied
VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK’S CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF LAZURAS AND THE NEW YORK SUB-
47. Lazarus incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-35 as
48. Lazarus and the other members of the New York Sub-Class have been injured and
suffered damages by violations of section 349(a) of New York General Business Law (the "GBL"),
which states: deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the
furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful.
49. Defendant engaged in acts and practices in the State of New York that were
deceptive or misleading in a material way, and that injured Lazarus and the other members of the
New York Sub-Class.
50. Such acts and practices were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting
reasonably under the circumstances existing at the time.
51. Defendant’s deceptive acts include Defendant’s failure to disclose that (a) it was
purposefully slowing down the performance speed of older iPhone models and/or that (b) a battery
replacement would improve the iPhone performance.
52. Lazarus and the other members of the New York Sub-Class have been damaged by
Defendant’s violations of Section 349 of the GBL, for which they seek recovery of the actual
damages they suffered because of Defendant’s willful and wrongful violations of section 349, in an
53. Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Sub-Class seek treble damages and
an award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Section 349(h) of the GBL.
VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY’S CONSUMER FRAUD ACT,
N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-1, ET SEQ.
(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF ABERMAN AND THE NEW JERSEY SUB-CLASS)
54. Plaintiff Aberman incorporates and re-alleges the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1-35 as if fully set forth herein.
55. As alleged in this Complaint, Apple, engaged in unconscionable commercial
practices, deception, misrepresentation, and the knowing concealment, suppression, and omission
of material facts with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression, and omission, in
connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56.8-
2. This includes, but is not limited to Defendant’s failure to disclose that (a) it was purposefully
slowing down the performance speed of older iPhone models and/or that (b) a battery replacement
would improve the iPhone performance.
56. As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, Plaintiff and other members of the New Jersey Sub-Class each suffered an ascertainable
loss of money as a result of Defendant’s use of the unconscionable business practice and material
57. Plaintiff Aberman brings this action on behalf of himself and other members of the
New Jersey Sub-Class for the relief requested above and for the public benefit in order to promote
the public interests in the provision of truthful, fair information to allow consumers to make
informed purchasing decisions and to protect Plaintiff and other members of the New Jersey Sub-
Class from Apple’s unfair methods of competition and unfair, deceptive, fraudulent,
unconscionable and unlawful practices. Apple’s wrongful conduct as alleged in this Complaint has
had widespread impact on the public at large.
58. Plaintiff Aberman and other members of the New Jersey Sub-Class also seek actual
damages, injunctive and/or other equitable relief and treble damages, and attorney’s fees and costs
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-19.
VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT,
FLA. STAT. § 501.201, ET SEQ.
(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS MARGOLIS, BRODSKY AND CHILDS AND THE
FLORIDA SUB-CLASS)
59. Margolis, Brodsky and Childs (the “Florida Plaintiffs”) incorporate and re-allege
the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-35 as if fully set forth herein.
60. At all relevant times, the Florida Plaintiffs and the other members of the Florida Sub-
Class members were “consumers” within the meaning of FDUPTA.
61. Apple engaged in trade and commerce in Florida.
62. As alleged herein this Complaint, Apple engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of consumer transactions, in violation of the FDUTPA by failing to disclose
that (a) it was purposefully slowing down the performance speed of older iPhone models and/or
that (b) a battery replacement would improve the iPhone performance.
63. As a direct and proximate result of Apple’s violation of the FDUTPA, the Florida
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Florida Sub-Class suffered damages.
64. The Florida Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the other
members of the Florida Sub-Class for the relief requested above and for the public benefit in order
to promote the public interests in the provision of truthful, fair information to allow consumers to
make informed purchasing decisions and to protect Plaintiffs and other members of the Florida Sub-
Class and the public from Apple’s unfair methods of competition and unfair, deceptive, fraudulent,
65. The Florida Plaintiffs and the other members of the Florida Sub-Class seek actual
damages under Fla. Stat. § 501.211 (2) and all fees, costs, and expenses allowed by law, including
attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Fla. Stat. §§ 501.2105
and 501.211, to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all members of the proposed
classes in this Complaint, respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in their favor and
a. For an Order certifying the Classes, as defined herein, and appointing Plaintiffs
and their Counsel to represent the Nationwide Class, or in the alternative the
separate Statewide Classes;
b. For an award of damages, as allowed by law in an amount to be determined;
c. For an award of attorneys’ fees costs and litigation expenses, as allowable by
d. For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; and
e. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
s/ Melissa R. Emert
Tel. (212) 687-7230
Fax (212) 490-2022
memert@ssbny.com
17-cv-07485
Documents Similar To Lazarus, Aberman, Margolis, Brodsky and Childs vs. Apple Inc.
More From Mike Snider
Starboard Value Letter to Yahoo Shareholders
Motion to Dismiss Order for case filed by Rod Wheeler against Fox News Network et al.
Motion to Dismiss order for suit filed by Seth Rich's parents against Fox News Channel et al.
House Democrats letter to Sinclair Broadcast Group CEO
Reply Comments in opposition to the Sinclair-Tribune merger by the Attorneys General of the states of Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
Nahas vs Personnel Employment