Skip to content 
Apple’s iPhone “Batterygate” Showdown: What the £850 Million Tribunal Claim Means for Consumers and Tech Businesses
Apple is heading for one of the most closely watched courtroom contests in recent UK consumer law. The technology giant faces a collective claim at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) brought on behalf of millions of iPhone owners, alleging that it abused its dominant market position by quietly throttling the performance of older devices. After years of procedural skirmishing — and several failed attempts by Apple to have the case thrown out — the claim is now moving toward a substantive trial.
For consumers, the obvious question is whether they owe money. For business owners, particularly those operating digital platforms, the more important question is what the case signals about the direction of UK competition enforcement. This article looks at both and at the legal machinery that sits underneath the headlines.
The background: unexpected shutdowns and a hidden fix
The dispute, often labelled “batterygate”, has its roots in a genuine engineering issue. From around late 2016, a number of older iPhone models began suffering “unexpected power-offs” — switching themselves off without warning, typically when the battery’s charge was low, the temperature was cold, or the battery had aged chemically. Rather than recall the affected devices or offer free replacements, Apple addressed the issue through a software update that introduced a “Power Management Feature” (PMF). The PMF reduced the peak power the processor could draw, which cut down the sudden shutdowns but also slowed the phones in certain conditions.
The complaint at the heart of the claim is not that Apple tried to fix the shutdowns. It is that Apple did so without telling users what the update would do and without giving them an informed choice about whether to accept the trade-off between stability and speed. Apple issued a public apology in December 2017 once the practice came to wider attention, and the Competition and Markets Authority opened an investigation that concluded in 2019 with the company giving formal undertakings about transparency.
The class representative, consumer campaigner Justin Gutmann, argues that affected consumers lost out in three ways: they suffered substandard performance; some paid for battery replacements they would not otherwise have needed; and some upgraded to new phones earlier than they would have, all because they were never told the real cause of the slowdown.
The legal mechanism: abuse of dominance and the collective regime
The claim is brought under the UK’s collective proceedings regime, introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and operated through section 47B of the Competition Act 1998. This process is the closest thing England and Wales has to a US-style class action, and it exists specifically for competition law breaches.
Two features of the regime matter here. First, the underlying allegation is an abuse of a dominant position, contrary to the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998. The argument is that Apple’s control over the iPhone ecosystem placed it in a dominant position and that imposing a performance-limiting feature without transparency was a way of exploiting that dominance.
Second, the proceedings are “opt-out” claims. That is significant for consumers. In an opt-out claim, every eligible person within the defined class is automatically included unless they actively choose to remove themselves. Eligible UK iPhone owners did not need to sign up, fill in a form, or instruct lawyers to be part of the case. The window to opt out closed in June 2025. The practical consequence is that millions of people are already represented in this litigation without having taken any step at all.
The claim was certified by the CAT in late 2023, after the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Gutmann had a realistic prospect of success and was a suitable person to represent the class. A collective proceedings order was finalised in early 2025 once questions over the litigation funding arrangements had been resolved.
The March 2026 judgment: narrowed, but alive
Apple has fought the claim hard at every stage, including a second attempt to have it struck out or dealt with by summary judgement. On 11 March 2026, the Tribunal delivered its ruling.
The outcome was mixed but, on balance, was favourable to consumers. The CAT refused to strike out the claim in its entirety and confirmed an important point of principle: a lack of transparency is, in law, capable of amounting to — or contributing to — an abuse of a dominant position. In other words, the way a dominant firm communicates with its customers can itself be a competition law issue, not merely a matter of consumer protection. On that basis, the claim was allowed to proceed to trial.
The Tribunal did, however, narrow the case. It struck out the parts of the claim relating to devices on which the power management feature was installed after March 2018, the point at which Apple’s iOS 11.3 update gave users visibility of their battery’s health and the ability to turn the feature off. The reasoning is intuitive: once users had been told what was happening and given a choice, the central allegation of concealment fell away. The Tribunal also directed the claim to be re-pleaded to streamline the issues for trial.
The headline figures remain substantial. The claim has been estimated at upwards of £850 million, brought on behalf of millions of UK iPhone users. Apple denies wrongdoing, maintaining that the feature was a legitimate and successful engineering response that materially reduced unexpected shutdowns and that any performance impact was modest. The amount any individual consumer might ultimately receive — press reports have floated figures in the region of a few tens of pounds per person — will depend on the trial outcome and the methodology the tribunal accepts for calculating loss.
What it means for consumers
The most reassuring point for ordinary iPhone owners is that there is nothing to do. Because the claim is opt-out and the opt-out deadline has passed, eligible UK consumers who owned an affected older iPhone are already part of the class. There is no claim form to complete and no lawyer to instruct. If the case succeeds or settles, the distribution of any compensation will be handled through the tribunal process.
A note of caution is warranted: “batterygate”-themed claims have attracted opportunistic websites and unsolicited approaches. Consumers should be wary of any service asking for upfront fees or sensitive personal data to “register” them for a claim they are likely already covered by.
What it means for businesses
For business owners, and especially those running digital platforms or app-based products, the case is a useful barometer of where UK competition risk is heading. Three points stand out.
First, conduct toward consumers is increasingly being framed as a competition issue, not just a consumer protection one. The Tribunal’s confirmation that opacity can contribute to an abuse of dominance should give pause to any business with significant market power that relies on customers not fully understanding a product’s limitations.
Second, the collective proceedings regime has matured into a genuine enforcement threat. A decade after its introduction, it is now producing certified, multi-million-pound claims that survive determined strike-out attempts. Firms can no longer assume that consumer claims will collapse for want of a workable class.
Third, transparency is cheaper than litigation. Much of Apple’s exposure flows not from fixing the shutdown problem but from how the fix was communicated. Clear, contemporaneous disclosure to customers about material changes to a product is, in competition terms, a defensive asset.
What happens next
The case now proceeds toward trial on the narrowed issues, with further procedural steps — including disclosure of Apple’s internal documents — expected along the way. A trial will require the tribunal to make detailed findings of fact about what Apple knew, what it told users, and what effect the power management feature actually had. Apple retains the right to challenge adverse rulings on appeal, so a final resolution may still be some way off.
Whatever the outcome, the claim is a landmark in the development of UK collective redress and a clear signal that dominant technology businesses will be held to account for how they treat the consumers who depend on them.
About Lawdit Solicitors
Lawdit Solicitors is a commercial law firm established in 2001, with particular expertise in intellectual property and commercial law. Our specialist trade mark service operates through TrademarkRoom. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article, please get in touch via lawdit.co.uk or trademarkroom.com.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects the position as reported at the time of writing. You should seek professional advice before acting on any of the matters discussed.
