Lead class counsel Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, joined by Kaplan Fox and Clarkson, filed a motion on May 5, 2026, for preliminary approval of a $250 million settlement with Apple Inc. in the Northern District of California [1]. The case, Landsheft v. Apple Inc., alleges that Apple ran a broad advertising campaign promoting the iPhone 16's "Apple Intelligence" AI-powered Siri capabilities that the company never actually delivered to consumers [1].
The complaint centers on claims that Apple induced millions of consumers to purchase iPhone 16 devices based on advertised AI features, including enhanced Siri functionality marketed under the "Apple Intelligence" brand, that remained unavailable after purchase [1]. Plaintiffs allege that the advertising campaign was pervasive and targeted, creating material consumer expectations that Apple failed to meet. The claims arise under consumer protection statutes and common law theories of false advertising. Lead class counsel Brian Danitz of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy has characterized the settlement as among the largest reached in a false advertising class action involving a consumer technology company [1].
The motion for preliminary approval initiates the court's two-stage settlement review process. A federal judge in the Northern District of California must first grant preliminary approval and authorize notice to class members before the settlement can proceed to a final fairness hearing. The Northern District has seen significant consumer technology class action activity, and the court's scrutiny of the settlement terms, including class definition, notice methodology, and attorneys' fees, will be a critical gatekeeping step. No hearing date has been publicly announced.
If the court grants final approval, the settlement could establish a significant damages benchmark for future litigation alleging that technology companies made material misrepresentations about AI feature availability or capability in consumer products [1]. As artificial intelligence features become central to consumer hardware marketing, the case signals that plaintiffs' firms are prepared to bring large-scale false advertising suits when advertised functionality does not materialize. Apple has not issued a public statement addressing the settlement filing.
Comments (0)