A Federal Demand filed on behalf of the discontent consumers states that Apple cheated buyers with promises of advanced artificial intelligence characteristics for Siri that never materialized. The complaint alleges that during a high -profile marketing campaign for the iPhone 16 series, Apple promoted a set of capabilities, collectively qualified as Apple's intelligence, which were never delivered, cheating millions of excess payments for devices that lacked the promised functionality.
False promises and deceptive marketing
According to the complaint filed by the plaintiff Peter Landsheft, the aggressive Apple advertising campaign created important consumer expectations. The company said that Siri would soon offer personalized assistance when resorting to the context of a user, allowing commands such as “reproducing that podcast that Jamie recommended” or “when is Mom's flight landing?” and perform hundreds of new actions in applications. However, the lawsuit argues that these statements were nothing more than exaggeration of marketing. Since then, Apple has admitted that such advanced functions do not currently exist and, if they ever do, they will not be available until 2026.
See: Vulnerability of the Apple Passwords application users exposed for months
The lawsuit argues that by announcing non -existent characteristics, Apple violated several state consumer protection laws, including the Law of Unjust Competition of California, the False Advertising Law and the Law of Legal Remedies of Consumers. In addition, the complaint accuses the technological giant of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and breach of the implicit guarantee of trade.
Consumer impact and industry implications
The collective claim complaint alleges that the deceptive campaign not only induced consumers to buy new iPhone models at premium prices, but also unjustly promoted Apple's market position.
See: EU takes energetic measures against Apple for anti -competitive behavior: this is what Apple told us in response
The false promises were broadly spread through television, social networks and the company's own retail channels, reaching millions during maximum visualization periods, such as the NFL season. This generalized misrepresentation, affirms the demand, not only damaged consumers financially but also to distorted competition in the smartphone market at the time when rivals such as Samsung, Google and others aggressively advance from their own abilities of AI.
While Apple has not yet commented on demand, industry analysts point out that the company's struggles in AIs are becoming increasingly evident. The litigation could force Apple to review their marketing practices and potentially offer compensation to affected consumers, underlining the risks faced by companies when they promise avant -garde innovation without technology to support it.
This legal challenge serves as a marked reminder of the importance of precise advertising in the current market promoted by technology, a lesson for consumers and for corporations that browse the scene of rapid evolution.
