Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Millions of iPhone users could be eligible for compensation after a legal claim was launched accusing tech giant Apple of secretly slowing the performance of older phones.
In January 2024, a class action lawsuit ordered Apple to pay Canadian iPhone users up to $14.4 million CAD to anyone who owned an iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone SE (1st generation) or iPhone 7 and upgraded to iOS 10.2.1 between December 21 2017. [25]
The civil lawsuit accuses Apple of an illegal monopoly on smartphones maintained by imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access from, developers.
The case In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation was filed as a class action in 2005 [9] claiming Apple violated the U.S. antitrust statutes in operating a music-downloading monopoly that it created by changing its software design to the proprietary FairPlay encoding in 2004, resulting in other vendors' music files being incompatible with and thus inoperable on the iPod. [10]
Get breaking news and the latest headlines on business, entertainment, politics, world news, tech, sports, videos and much more from AOL
The iOS mobile operating system developed by Apple has had a wide range of bugs and security issues discovered throughout its lifespan, including security exploits discovered in most versions of the operating system related to the practice of jailbreaking (to remove Apple's software restrictions), bypassing the user's lock screen (known as lock screen bypasses), issues relating to battery ...
The lawsuit accused Apple of making the iPhone worse in various ways – including reducing privacy protections and restricting features – in order to keep its monopoly over the smartphone market.
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 May 21, 2004 Patents Harper v Canada (AG) [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33 May 18, 2004 Freedom of speech, federal elections Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Assn of Internet Providers [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 44 June 30, 2004