iPhone 13 
News

Consumer court orders Apple to pay ₹1 lakh compensation after iPhone tracking feature fails

The complaint arose after the consumer’s stolen iPhone could not be traced despite the device displaying a message stating that it remained findable after being switched off.

Arna Chatterjee

The South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed Apple India to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation to a consumer for not clearly disclosing the conditions attached to the iPhone’s Find My feature. [Shan Mohmmed v. Apple India]

The complaint arose after the consumer’s stolen iPhone could not be traced despite the device displaying a message stating that it remained findable after being switched off.

A coram of Monika A Srivastava (President) and Kiran Kaushal (Member) observed that the message displayed on the device could mislead users into believing that the phone could be located even after being switched off, without clearly informing them that the feature would function only if the “Find My” option had been enabled beforehand. It held,

"This Commission finds OP (Apple India) to be guilty of deficiency in its services in not providing the users complete information regarding the said feature by informing/prompting them to click on the said feature and thereby making them believe that the information/statement 'Iphone findable after power off' is complete."

The complaint was filed by a Delhi resident who had purchased an Apple iPhone 13 in February 2022 after upgrading from his earlier Apple iPhone 11 Pro. According to the complaint, the phone was stolen from his residence in September 2022 along with other devices, following which he lodged an first information report (FIR) with the police.

The complainant stated that he had been using iPhones since 2015 and trusted the brand because the device displayed a message stating “iPhone findable after power off” when the power was being switched off. He claimed that this feature gave users the assurance that the phone could still be located in the event of loss or theft.

After the theft, the complainant attempted to trace the device through Apple’s official website and customer support channels, but was unable to locate it. He alleged that despite following all available instructions and contacting customer care as well as authorised outlets, he received no effective assistance.

Claiming that he suffered harassment and mental agony, he approached the Commission seeking a refund of the phone’s cost, ₹5 lakh as compensation and litigation expenses.

Apple India contested the complaint, arguing that it had no legal obligation to trace a stolen phone and that such responsibility lay with law enforcement authorities.

The company further submitted that the feature referred to by the complainant would only work if the “Find My” function had been enabled on the device and the phone was within a cellular or Wi-Fi network.

Apple also stated that the complainant had not activated the “Find My” feature prior to January 2023, months after the phone was reported stolen. According to the company, it had informed the complainant through emails that the “iPhone findable after power off” functionality relies on the device being associated with the “Find My” network.

The Commission noted that the message displayed on the phone simply stated that the iPhone was findable after power off, without any asterisk, disclaimer, or visible indication that additional conditions had to be fulfilled for the feature to work.

Although Apple’s counsel demonstrated during the hearing that clicking on the message reveals the requirement that “Find My” must be enabled, the Commission held that such information was not clearly communicated to users at the outset.

“The user would take the statement (iPhone findable after power off) to be true and a complete statement as there is no pre-condition attached to it,” observed the Commission.

Accordingly, the Commission directed Apple India to pay ₹1 lakh to the complainant as compensation.

Advocates Aneesh Ahmed and Md Miskeen appeared for the complainant.

Advocate Anchal Pund represented Apple India.

[Read Order]

Shan Mohmmed v. Apple India.pdf
Preview

Detention of student-activists: Delhi High Court orders preservation of CCTV footage

Will attach treasury accounts: Kerala HC slams delay in funding victim compensation scheme, paying mediator fees

BEGUR & PARTNERS advises Kriscore Capital on investment in Confluxe Retail

Supreme Court refuses to entertain journo Ravi Nair’s plea against summons over report on Adani group

Hardeep Puri's daughter files ₹10 crore defamation case in Delhi HC to remove content linking her to Jeffrey Epstein

SCROLL FOR NEXT