Lawsuits against Apple currently span a federal antitrust case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and sixteen states, hundreds of millions in consumer class-action settlements over Siri recordings and iPhone performance throttling, regulatory penalties from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the European Commission, a continuing App Store fight with Epic Games, and patent verdicts in the hundreds of millions tied to the Apple Watch. Some of these cases put money directly into consumers’ hands. Others are reshaping how the iPhone, App Store, and Apple Watch work.
The DOJ Antitrust Case
The largest active case is United States and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc., filed March 21, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Justice Department and attorneys general from sixteen states and the District of Columbia accuse Apple of monopolizing the U.S. smartphone market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.1National Association of Attorneys General. U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple, Inc.
The complaint points to five categories of conduct. Apple is alleged to block “super apps” that would make switching platforms easier, restrict mobile cloud-streaming services that reduce dependence on expensive hardware, degrade the quality of cross-platform messaging to push consumers toward iPhones, limit how third-party smartwatches work with the iPhone, and reserve tap-to-pay for Apple Wallet. The court, when it analyzed the pleadings, accepted that the DOJ had adequately alleged Apple holds roughly 65% of the U.S. smartphone market and about 70% of the “performance smartphone” market.2DOJ. US and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
Apple moved to dismiss. Judge Julien Xavier Neals denied that motion on June 30, 2025, rejecting Apple’s “refusal to deal” theory and holding that security and user-experience justifications raised factual questions unsuited to the pleading stage.1National Association of Attorneys General. U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple, Inc.
The case is now in discovery. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre approved a Justice Department request to pause proceedings, part of a broader slowdown in federal antitrust cases against big technology companies. A short pause was described as unlikely to cause major disruption, but a longer delay could push back a trial already projected for 2027.3Politico. Washington’s Push to Break Up Big Tech Hits a Shutdown
Consumer Settlements You May Be Able to Claim
Apple Intelligence Advertising ($250 Million)
A proposed $250 million class-action settlement would resolve claims that Apple falsely advertised “Apple Intelligence” and “Enhanced Siri” features that were not actually available when the iPhone 16 launched in 2024. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.4Mashable. Apple Class Action Settlement iPhone Models
Roughly 37 million devices purchased in the United States between June 10, 2024, and March 29, 2025, are covered: all iPhone 16 variants (16, 16e, 16 Plus, 16 Pro, and 16 Pro Max), plus the iPhone 15 Pro and 15 Pro Max. Base payments are $25 per device, potentially rising to $95 depending on how many claims come in. The settlement administrator, Verita, is expected to notify eligible customers by email or mail using Apple’s records once the court grants preliminary approval. Claimants would then have 90 days from that notice to file. Apple has not admitted wrongdoing.5Yahoo Finance. Apple May Owe $95 per Device in $250M Settlement
Siri Privacy ($95 Million)
The Lopez v. Apple class action, filed in 2019, alleged that Siri-enabled devices recorded private conversations without a proper “Hey, Siri” activation or button press, and that Apple shared those recordings with third-party contractors and used them for ad targeting.6Courthouse News Service. Judge Approves $95 Million Apple Settlement Over Siri Privacy Case
Apple agreed to a $95 million settlement in December 2024, and U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted final approval on September 4, 2025. U.S. residents who owned a Siri-enabled device that was unintentionally activated during a private conversation between September 17, 2014, and December 31, 2024, could claim up to $20 per device for a maximum of five devices. Apple denied the allegations.6Courthouse News Service. Judge Approves $95 Million Apple Settlement Over Siri Privacy Case
“Batterygate” ($310 Million to $500 Million)
This settlement grew out of Apple’s 2017 admission that software updates slowed older iPhones with degraded batteries, without telling users. It covered iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus owners running specified iOS versions before December 21, 2017. Apple agreed to a fund of $310 million to $500 million without admitting wrongdoing.7CNET. Apple Starts Sending Out iPhone Batterygate Settlement Payments
The claim deadline passed in October 2020. After the Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal in August 2023, payments of roughly $92.17 per claimant began reaching class members around January 2024. If you did not file by October 2020, you are not eligible.8The Hill. Apple Paying Out Claims in $500 Million iPhone Slowdown Lawsuit
Apple Watch Screen Defect ($20 Million)
A $20 million settlement received preliminary approval in October 2024 to resolve claims that early Apple Watch models — first generation through Series 3 — suffered battery swelling that caused screens to detach or crack. Eligible owners could receive $20 to $50 per device.9Courthouse News Service. Apple to Settle Apple Watch Defect Class Action for $20 Million
Regulatory Penalties
Apple Card and the CFPB
In October 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Apple to pay a $25 million civil penalty over the Apple Card, which is issued by Goldman Sachs. The CFPB found that Apple failed to forward tens of thousands of billing-error notices from users to Goldman Sachs for investigation between June 2020 and July 2021. The agency also found that Apple misled consumers by implying device purchases made with the Apple Card would automatically enroll in its monthly installment payment program, when certain browser configurations prevented the enrollment option from appearing.10Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. CFPB Consent Order – Apple Inc.
Apple consented to the order without admitting or denying the findings, paid the full penalty, and the CFPB terminated the order on September 22, 2025.11Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Enforcement Action – Apple Inc.
European Union Digital Markets Act
On April 23, 2025, the European Commission fined Apple €500 million (about $586 million) for breaching the Digital Markets Act’s rules requiring that it freely allow alternative app marketplaces for users and developers. The Commission cited “the gravity and duration of the non-compliance.” Apple said it was being “unfairly targeted” and accused the Commission of “moving the goal posts.” Apple was given sixty days to comply or face additional penalties.12BBC. EU Fines Apple and Meta Over Digital Rules Breaches
Apple then changed its European App Store policies and appealed the fine. As of mid-2025, no additional fines had been imposed, and the appeal remained pending.13CNBC. Apple Appeal EU Fine App Store
Epic Games and the App Store
The Epic Games v. Apple fight over App Store rules has produced some of the most watched rulings in technology antitrust. The Ninth Circuit’s April 2023 decision ruled largely for Apple on Epic’s federal antitrust claims, finding that Epic failed to prove its proposed market definition or point to substantially less restrictive alternatives. But the court upheld, under California’s Unfair Competition Law, the trial court’s finding that Apple’s anti-steering provision — the rule barring developers from telling users about alternative payment methods — was unfair, and it left the injunction against that provision in place.14Justia. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Enforcement has not been smooth. A federal judge found Apple in civil contempt for hindering developers from steering customers to alternative purchasing options and for imposing substantial commissions on purchases made through third-party links. Apple asked the Supreme Court to stay the contempt order. Justice Elena Kagan denied the request on May 6, 2026, without referring it to the full court. Epic alleges Apple’s resistance delayed real competition for over two years. Apple has called the contempt finding “erroneous and prejudicial” and said it will seek further Supreme Court review.15SCOTUSblog. Court Turns Down Apple’s Request to Pause Order Holding It in Contempt
Patent Cases Affecting Apple Products
Masimo and the Apple Watch
Medical technology company Masimo has been fighting Apple over pulse oximetry in the Apple Watch. In 2023, the International Trade Commission found that Apple infringed Masimo’s patents and imposed an import ban on the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2. Apple temporarily removed the blood-oxygen feature from those models. In January 2024, the companies reached an arrangement allowing imports with the feature disabled.16Global Legal Post. Masimo Sues US Customs in Unique Twist to Patent Battle Over Apple Watches
On November 14, 2025, a federal jury in the Central District of California awarded Masimo $634 million after finding that Apple infringed a Masimo patent covering a feature that gives abnormal heart-rate warnings.17Masimo. Masimo Issues Statement on California Jury Verdict
In August 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a ruling effectively allowing Apple to resume importing watches with pulse oximetry, and Apple announced plans to restore the blood-oxygen feature by software update. Masimo sued CBP in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block that ruling. Apple’s appeal of the underlying ITC import ban remains pending at the Federal Circuit.16Global Legal Post. Masimo Sues US Customs in Unique Twist to Patent Battle Over Apple Watches
Optis Cellular Technology
A jury in the Eastern District of Texas initially found Apple infringed five Optis LTE patents and awarded $506.2 million; a 2022 damages retrial reduced the award to $300 million. In June 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated both the infringement and damages judgments because the verdict form used a single infringement question for all five patents, violating Apple’s Seventh Amendment right to a unanimous verdict on each claim. The case was remanded for a new trial.18U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple Inc.
Caltech Wi-Fi Patents
The California Institute of Technology sued Apple and Broadcom in 2016 over Wi-Fi patents used in Apple devices with Broadcom chips. A jury awarded over $1.1 billion, roughly $838 million from Apple and $270 million from Broadcom. The Federal Circuit threw out the damages award in 2022, calling the experts’ formula “legally unsupportable,” and vacated the infringement verdict on one of the three asserted patents. Apple and Broadcom petitioned the Supreme Court, which asked for the views of the Solicitor General.19RCR Wireless News. Apple, Broadcom Win New Damages Trial in Caltech Wi-Fi Patent Case
Other Active Consumer Litigation
Apple also faces a steady pipeline of newer consumer and copyright suits:
- A class action filed in October 2025 in the Northern District of California alleges Apple used pirated books from a dataset called “Books3” and its web crawler “Applebot” to train Apple Intelligence models without compensating authors.20Saveri Law Firm. Apple Intelligence Copyright Infringement Litigation
- A 2024 lawsuit alleges Apple chose not to implement industry-standard tools to detect child sexual abuse material on iCloud despite internal awareness of the problem, citing text messages from an Apple anti-fraud executive who reportedly described the company as “the greatest platform for distributing child porn.”21ClassAction.org. Apple Turns a Blind Eye to Child Sexual Abuse Material on iCloud, Class Action Lawsuit Says
- Additional filings target Beats headphone microphones, “carbon neutral” marketing claims for the Apple Watch, fraudulent cryptocurrency apps in the App Store, AppleCare+ billing after device returns, and New York labor law violations over pay frequency for hourly workers.22ClassAction.org. Apple Inc. Class Action Lawsuits
If You Want to Sue Apple Yourself
Many of Apple’s product and service agreements contain mandatory arbitration clauses. Apple’s payment terms require that disputes be resolved through binding individual arbitration under JAMS rules, with class actions and representative proceedings prohibited. Apple agrees not to invoke arbitration for claims brought in small claims court. In arbitration, Apple covers filing fees and arbitrator costs beyond what you would pay to file in the nearest court, or $250, whichever is less.23Apple. Direct Payments Terms and Conditions
The Apple Card Customer Agreement, maintained by Goldman Sachs, also mandates arbitration but gives cardholders a 90-day window after account opening to opt out by notifying Apple via message, phone, or letter.24Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. Caution: Loss of Rights Buried Within Apple Card’s Terms If you want the right to sue individually or join a future class action over your Apple Card, that opt-out window is the moment to use it.