Software features slip every year. Almost none of them end in a nine-figure settlement. Landsheft, et al. v. Apple Inc. did, and the reason is worth understanding for anyone who follows consumer class actions, because it shows exactly where a product announcement stops being marketing puffery and becomes an actionable promise. Apple agreed to a $250 million settlement, denies every allegation, and the claim period opened September 21, 2026.
The Conduct Alleged
On June 10, 2024, Apple announced Apple Intelligence and a redesigned Siri that, it said, would understand a user’s personal context, act across apps and respond to what was on screen. The iPhone 16 lineup launched that September and was marketed as built for those features; the iPhone 15 Pro and 15 Pro Max were the only existing models able to run them. The personalized Siri features did not ship with the phones. In March 2025 Apple said publicly that they would take longer than planned.
The complaint, filed in the Northern District of California in March 2025, alleges that Apple advertised those capabilities as features of the phones it was selling, knew or should have known they were not ready, and that buyers paid for a capability they did not receive. The claims are pleaded under consumer protection statutes in several states, the California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law among them, together with common-law theories. Apple denies all of it, denies it did anything improper or unlawful, and has asserted defenses to every claim. No court has ruled on the merits.
Why This Was Not Puffery
Advertising law tolerates vague enthusiasm. “The most powerful iPhone ever” is not actionable because no reasonable buyer treats it as a measurable promise. Three features of this case pulled it out of that safe harbor.
The claims were specific and demonstrable. Apple’s keynote and its launch advertising showed particular tasks being completed — Siri pulling a flight number from an email, acting on something on screen. A demonstrated capability is a factual representation, and a factual representation that turns out to be untrue at the point of sale is the core of a false-advertising claim.
The representation was tied to the purchase decision. The plaintiffs’ theory is that Apple Intelligence was sold as the reason to buy the iPhone 16, or to upgrade to a 15 Pro, rather than as a free future software update. Under California’s consumer statutes a plaintiff must show reliance and economic injury; a feature that is the marketed reason for the purchase supplies both.
The class was identifiable from the defendant’s own records. Apple can tie every serial number to a purchase date and an Apple Account. Class certification often fails on the question of how to identify who bought what. Here the administrator can verify membership without a receipt, which is why the settlement requires no proof of purchase. That fact cuts both ways: it made the class easier to certify and made settlement more attractive than litigating certification.
The Class Period Is the Theory in Miniature
The settlement class covers phones bought between June 10, 2024 and March 29, 2025. Both dates are legal arguments. The start date is the announcement, on the theory that no one could have relied on the Siri representations before they were made. The end date is when Apple publicly acknowledged the delay, on the theory that a buyer after that point had notice and cannot claim to have been misled. An iPhone 15 Pro bought at launch in September 2023 is outside the class for the first reason; an iPhone 16 bought in April 2025 is outside it for the second.
What the Claim Form Makes Each Class Member Say
The settlement does not pay for owning a phone. Every claimant certifies, under a declaration that may be audited, that when they bought the device they expected to receive certain Siri Apple Intelligence features and did not receive them. That sentence is the reliance element of the false-advertising claim, reduced to a checkbox. A class member who bought the phone for its camera and never cared about Siri is technically inside the class definition but is asked to sign a statement that may not be true for them. The notice says claims are subject to audit, review and validation.
Settlement Terms
The Total Settlement Amount is $250,000,000. Attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, service awards of up to $2,000 per named plaintiff and notice and administration costs come out first. The remainder is divided per Eligible Device at $25, adjusted pro rata upward to a ceiling of $95 if few claims are filed, or downward if more devices are claimed than the parties assumed. Plaintiffs’ preliminary approval papers estimated tens of millions of devices in the class.
Seven models qualify: the iPhone 15 Pro, 15 Pro Max, 16, 16 Plus, 16 Pro, 16 Pro Max and 16e, bought new in the United States by a U.S. resident for use rather than resale. Judge Noël Wise granted preliminary approval on July 17, 2026. Claims, opt-outs and objections are due December 21, 2026. Class Counsel’s fee motion must be posted by November 17, 2026. The final approval hearing is February 24, 2027 in San Jose.
📨 Get Free Mass Tort Guides Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
What It Means for Future Product Cases
The settlement is not a precedent; nothing was decided. But it is a data point that plaintiffs’ firms will cite in demand letters. A company that demonstrates a specific capability, ties it to a hardware purchase and then ships the hardware without it has, on this template, exposure measured by units sold multiplied by a per-unit figure. For a product that sells in the tens of millions, the arithmetic does the negotiating. Regulators have said the same thing from the other direction: the Federal Trade Commission’s 2024 enforcement sweep over AI claims rested on the position that there is no AI exception to existing advertising law.
Class members can file at the official settlement website, SmartphoneAISettlement.com. A step-by-step filing guide, including the serial-number and Apple Account paths, is at OpenClassActions.org.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Landsheft v. Apple allege?
That Apple marketed the iPhone 16 lineup and the Apple Intelligence-capable iPhone 15 Pro models around a redesigned Siri with personal-context awareness, on-screen awareness and cross-app actions, when those features did not ship with the phones and were later delayed. The claims are brought under consumer protection laws in several states. Apple denies all of the allegations.
Why is this false advertising rather than an ordinary software delay?
Because the plaintiffs allege the capabilities were specific, demonstrated, and tied to the decision to buy the hardware, rather than vague enthusiasm about a future update. Specific factual representations that are untrue at the point of sale are the core of a false-advertising claim. Apple disputes this characterization and the court has not ruled on it.
Did Apple admit wrongdoing?
No. Apple denies every allegation, denies that it did anything improper or unlawful, and the settlement notice states that it is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing of any kind. Both sides settled to avoid the cost and risk of trial.
Who is in the settlement class?
U.S. residents who bought a new iPhone 15 Pro, 15 Pro Max, 16, 16 Plus, 16 Pro, 16 Pro Max or 16e in the United States between June 10, 2024 and March 29, 2025, for use rather than resale. Payment is $25 per eligible device, adjustable up to $95, with no receipt required. Claims close December 21, 2026.
What does a class member have to certify to be paid?
That when they bought the phone they expected to receive certain Siri Apple Intelligence features and did not receive them, and that the purchase was made in the United States inside the class period. The declaration is signed under penalty and claims are subject to audit.
When is the final approval hearing?
February 24, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Noël Wise in the San Jose courthouse of the Northern District of California. The court may move the date; the settlement website carries the current one.
Sources
- Smartphone AI Settlement — the official settlement website, administered by Verita Global, LLC: long-form notice, online claim form, individual and entity paper claim forms.
- Court-approved long-form notice in Landsheft, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division: class definition, the seven Eligible Devices, the class period, the $250 million Total Settlement Amount, the $25 per-device payment and $95 cap, the December 21, 2026 deadlines and the February 24, 2027 final approval hearing.
- Order granting preliminary approval, July 17, 2026, Hon. Noël Wise.
- OpenClassActions.com — Apple $250M Apple Intelligence Siri Settlement, and its May 2026 report on how the settlement came together.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. This site is not a law firm, is not the settlement administrator and is not affiliated with Apple or any party to the case. Apple denies the allegations and no court has decided the merits. Deadlines and payment amounts can change as the court and the administrator act; confirm current status on the official settlement website. You never need to pay anyone to file a claim.