Following recent revelations in several media outlets reporting that iPhone 6, 6S, SE and 7 models had slowed down after updating to the latest operating system, the association HOP / Halte à l’Obsolescence Programmée has today lodged a complaint against Apple on the grounds of the offence of planned obsolescence.
With this complaint, France is the third country (after the United States and Israel) in which the Cupertino-based firm has been accused of planned obsolescence. However, unlike those two countries, France has made it a criminal offence. The 2015 Energy Transition Act prohibits ‘the practice of planned obsolescence, defined as the use of techniques whereby the party responsible for placing a product on the market deliberately seeks to reduce its lifespan in order to increase the replacement rate’. Complaints are therefore dealt with under criminal law; the law provides for a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, a fine of 300,000 euros and 5 per cent of annual turnover.
In its complaint, the HOP (Stop Planned Obsolescence) association demonstrates, on the one hand, that Apple is throttling its older iPhone models via an operating system update, and highlights, on the other hand, that this update is being rolled out at the very moment the iPhone 8 is being released. The slowing down of older devices appears to be a deliberate attempt to push Apple customers into buying the new model.
Mr Émile Meunier, the association’s lawyer, states: “For several years now, Apple customers have been noticing that their devices slow down just as a new model is released. But this time, experts have demonstrated this technically, and Apple has had no choice but to acknowledge it. Why the silence all these years?” Why does this slowdown occur when a new model is released? Why does this phenomenon not occur with other manufacturers such as Samsung? The lawyer hopes that the criminal investigation will provide answers to these questions.
This is not the association’s first attempt. It was behind the first complaint regarding planned obsolescence against printer manufacturers, in particular Epson (though Canon, HP and Brother are also targeted). The case is currently under investigation.
