Florida Court Dismisses Lawsuit Claiming Apple 'Broke' FaceTime on Older iPhones to Save Costs - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
Skip to Content

Florida Court Dismisses Lawsuit Claiming Apple 'Broke' FaceTime on Older iPhones to Save Costs

A court in Florida has dismissed a consumer lawsuit alleging that Apple intentionally "broke" FaceTime on older iPhones as a cost-saving measure (via Bloomberg Law).

facetime e1486093308787
In 2017, a similar class-action lawsuit was brought against Apple in California that claimed Apple broke ‌FaceTime‌ in iOS 6 to force users to upgrade to iOS 7. According to the lawsuit, Apple forced users to upgrade so it could avoid payments on a data deal with Akamai.

Apple agreed in February to settle the lawsuit in California, but the federal court in the Florida case ruled on Tuesday that the claims against Apple did not meet timeliness requirements. According to U.S. District Court Judge Raag Singhal, the complainants had several chances to file suit against Apple, but didn't lodge their complaint until August 2019.

Apple used two connection methods when it launched ‌FaceTime‌ in 2010: a peer-to-peer method that created a direct connection between two iPhones, and a relay method that used data servers from content delivery network company Akamai Technologies.

Apple's peer-to-peer ‌FaceTime‌ technology was found to infringe on VirnetX's patents in 2012, however, so the company began to shift toward the relay method, which used Akamai's servers. Within a year, Apple was paying $50 million in fees to Akamai, according to testimony from the VirnetX trial.

Apple eventually solved the problem by creating new peer-to-peer technology that would debut in iOS 7. The class-action lawsuits, however, alleged that Apple created a fake bug that caused a digital certificate to prematurely expire on April 16, 2014, breaking ‌FaceTime‌ on iOS 6.

The lawsuits claimed that breaking ‌FaceTime‌ in iOS 6 allowed Apple to save money because it would no longer need to support users who did not upgrade to iOS 7.

Popular Stories

Apple Logo 16x9 US Flag Feature

Apple Subpoenas Samsung in South Korea Over DOJ Antitrust Case

Thursday April 9, 2026 4:20 am PDT by
Apple has asked a U.S. court to formally request internal Samsung documents from South Korea as part of discovery in the DOJ's ongoing antitrust lawsuit against the company. The DOJ filed suit against Apple in March 2024, alongside a number of governments, alleging the company used App Store rules, developer restrictions, and control over key iPhone features to stifle competition. After Apple...
Jon Prosser Rainbow

Jon Prosser Still Not Fully Cooperating in Apple's iOS 26 Trade Secrets Lawsuit

Tuesday April 14, 2026 6:57 am PDT by
A joint status report filed yesterday in Apple's trade secrets lawsuit against YouTuber Jon Prosser and Michael Ramacciotti shows Prosser is still failing to comply with discovery, prompting Apple to seek a court order to compel him. The latest filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday, covers developments since the parties' last update in ...
app store blue banner epic 1

Epic Games Wins Reversal of Stay in App Store Fee Legal Battle

Wednesday April 29, 2026 5:05 am PDT by
Apple will not be able to delay a district court battle over fee calculations while it waits to hear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the latest developments in its long-running dispute with Epic Games. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision letting Apple keep its current zero-fee link-out commission structure in place while it appeals to...

Top Rated Comments

79 months ago

Doesn’t matter what the courts say. It was planned obsolescence just like the throttlegate fiasco.
I always find it funny when people link that to planned obsolescence. What Apple did was the opposite of planned obsolescence. Keeping your phone running longer without shutting down randomly means your phone would last longer.
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
79 months ago
The bit I don’t get is even if Apple did do this to avoid costs, what’s wrong with that?

There was no guarantee offered That FaceTime would last forever. It’s similar to how old game servers get turned off years after a game is released so certain features stop working.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
79 months ago

I pray every day that Apple restores the iOS 6 look.
*vomits skeuomorphically*
Score: 7 Votes (Like | Disagree)
BvizioN Avatar
79 months ago

Doesn’t matter what the courts say. It was planned obsolescence just like the throttlegate fiasco.
I get it.
It doesn't matter what the court says when it doesn't suit your personal believes.


I pray every day that Apple restores the iOS 6 look. I do agree with the lawsuit. Many people did not upgrade because of the horrible iOS 7 look and were out face time.
I have absolutely no idea why anyone would want to go backwards (like nearly a decade), but I keep telling myself, people are weird!
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
mazz0 Avatar
79 months ago
Well not really, there's been no demonstration either way on whether Apple did what it's accused of or not. The case has only been dismissed on a technicality.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
79 months ago
good. it was a frivolous lawsuit anyways
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Related Apple News: Iphone | News | Politics | South Africa | Travel