Apple was not able to get an AirPods Pro class action lawsuit filed in November 2024 dismissed, but the judge overseeing the case did throw out some of the claims this week, giving the company a partial win.
The lawsuit covers the first-generation AirPods Pro, accusing Apple of false advertising for selling AirPods Pro models with ongoing crackling or static issues. Shortly after the AirPods Pro went on sale, customers began complaining of crackling, rattling, popping, and static-like noises. Apple issued a software update in May 2020 to attempt to fix the problem, and then later launched a repair program in October 2020.
The customers who filed the lawsuit requested relief due to the defective nature of the AirPods Pro, and they said they would not have purchased the earbuds or would have paid less if Apple was forthcoming about the flaw.
Apple filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in March 2025, leading to the mixed result handed down this week. Claims related to some state fraud and consumer law were dismissed, as were those related to express warranty and implied warranty. Nationwide claims were also thrown out because the plaintiffs failed to present a representative plaintiff from each state, which the court said is required for nationwide counts. Some plaintiff-specific claims were dropped, and a claim for unjust enrichment in California did not survive. The court also denied injunctive relief because the original AirPods Pro are no longer offered for sale.
The fraud by omission claims survived, and Apple is accused of failing to disclose known AirPods Pro defects even after acknowledging them publicly with the 2020 service program. Several of the state, nationwide, and warranty claims can be amended and refiled with more information in the next 21 days, so some of the claims could be revived as the case goes on.
Plaintiffs will need to prove that Apple was aware of the defect and concealed it following the 2020 repair program, and that the company denied valid warranty repairs for those claims to move forward.
The surviving fraud by omission claim could prove to be an obstacle for the plaintiffs later in the decision process, and it could ultimately be dismissed. Citing prior case law, Apple argued that it only has to disclose safety issues after the warranty period has expired, and the AirPods Pro sound defect was not a safety hazard. The court did not reject Apple's argument, and simply said that it was premature for it to consider the issue at this stage.
