Apple has urged a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit claiming the company defrauded shareholders by overstating its Siri voice assistant's AI capabilities and misrepresenting its compliance with an injunction related to app sales commissions. In a recent filing in the San Jose federal court, Apple argued that the plaintiffs lacked proof that the company knowingly misled investors regarding delays in Siri's advanced features or that it provided false assurances about its compliance with legal obligations from a previous case with Epic Games.

The lawsuit encompasses a significant period from May 3, 2024, to May 1, 2025, during which Apple shareholders reportedly faced substantial losses, estimated in the hundreds of billions, following a judge's ruling that Apple was violating the injunction. During this timeframe, Apple experienced considerable fluctuations in its stock price, which the company maintains is typical behavior for major corporations in the tech industry. Apple asserted that the plaintiffs' claims are unfounded and based on a speculative connection between the stock price changes and alleged securities fraud.

The heart of the controversy lies in the allegations that Apple overstated the capabilities of its Siri voice assistant. At a June 2024 conference, discussions surrounding AI led to expectations that advanced features for Siri were forthcoming. However, Apple acknowledged that the integration of these features would take longer than initially anticipated. Following this, in March 2025, Apple announced delays in the rollout of certain Siri upgrades. This delay became a focal point for the plaintiffs, who argue that it negatively impacted sales of the iPhone 16, further compounding shareholder losses.

In a statement, Chief Executive Tim Cook remarked that developing a "more personal" Siri was proving to be more time-consuming than the company had originally envisioned. This admission underscores the challenges Apple faces in keeping pace with advancements in AI technology and meeting consumer expectations.

Additionally, the lawsuit includes allegations regarding Apple's compliance with an injunction stemming from a legal dispute with Epic Games. This injunction requires Apple to allow app developers to provide external links for purchases, thereby circumventing the hefty 30% commission Apple typically charges. The plaintiffs contend that Apple failed to adequately comply with this injunction, which they argue constitutes a form of securities fraud.

MORE FROM COINTIMES

Aave Surpasses $1 Trillion in Lending, Redefining DeFi Landscape

Aave has surpassed $1 trillion in cumulative lending volume, solidifying its role in the DeFi industry and pushing for greater integration with traditional finance.

In response, Apple emphasized that it never provided any assurances that its compliance procedures would be flawless. The company argued that such complexities and challenges in adhering to regulatory requirements are common in the tech industry, particularly for a company of its size and influence. Apple further stated that the plaintiffs are making a "massive and unsupported leap" in connecting the company’s stock price fluctuations with allegations of fraud, highlighting the inherent volatility that is often present in the equities market.

The legal implications of this case extend beyond the immediate concerns of shareholders. The lawsuit against Apple raises significant questions about how technology companies communicate their product capabilities, particularly in an industry characterized by rapid innovation and evolving legal standards. As regulators scrutinize the practices of major tech companies, the way in which these companies disclose information to investors may come under increased examination. The outcome of this case could set critical precedents regarding corporate governance and accountability within the tech sector.

Moreover, the involvement of significant stakeholders in this lawsuit adds another layer of complexity. The case is being led by lawyers representing South Korea's National Pension Service, which is recognized as the world's third-largest pension fund, with nearly $1 trillion in assets. This involvement amplifies the stakes, as the outcomes of such lawsuits can influence investment strategies and shareholder confidence not only in Apple but across the broader technology market.

On a related note, the injunction that Apple is accused of violating required the company to implement a system that allows app users to make direct payments to developers, thereby avoiding the substantial commissions Apple collects from App Store transactions. Despite efforts to comply, a judge overseeing the injunction criticized Apple for creating a new system that still imposed a 27% commission on some external sales. This ruling reflects the ongoing tension between big tech companies and regulatory bodies, as stakeholders grapple with the implications of such financial practices.

In December, a federal appeals court partially reversed sanctions imposed on Apple, suggesting that the legal landscape surrounding these issues remains fluid. As the lawsuit unfolds, the outcomes could have far-reaching effects on how technology companies navigate regulatory challenges and investor relations. Stakeholders will be watching closely, as the ramifications of this case could reverberate through the tech industry, influencing everything from investment decisions to regulatory policies, and ultimately shaping the future of corporate governance in this dynamic sector.