Back
iPhone's "Findable After Power Off" Promise Backfires: Consumer Court Slaps Apple with Rs 1 Lakh Fine
In a ruling that highlights the pitfalls of incomplete product disclosures, the has held Apple India liable for . The bench, led by President Ms. Monika A. Srivastava and Member Ms. Kiran Kaushal , ordered the tech giant to pay Rs 1 lakh to complainant Shan Mohmmed , whose stolen iPhone 13 couldn't be traced despite a reassuring on-screen message. This decision, delivered on , underscores how subtle feature messaging can mislead loyal users.
From Upgrade to Heartbreak: The Theft That Tested Apple's Word
Shan Mohmmed, a Delhi resident and proprietor of Weather Cool Services, had been an iPhone user since 2015, drawn by features like
"iPhone findable after power off"
. Trusting this safeguard, he upgraded to an
iPhone 13 (white)
on
, for
Rs 70,500
. Disaster struck on
, when thieves raided his Malviya Nagar home, stealing the phone alongside others. An FIR (No. 000990/2022 under
) followed, but Mohmmed's attempts to locate the device via Apple's website, iCloud, customer care, and service outlets failed.
Frustrated, Mohmmed filed the complaint on , demanding a refund, Rs 5 lakh compensation for trauma, and Rs 35,000 in litigation costs. Media reports echoed his plight, noting how the phone's message lulled users into false security without clear caveats.
Apple's Counter: "Tracking Isn't Our Duty, User Error Was Yours"
Apple India fired back, denying any obligation to trace stolen devices—a job for law enforcement, they argued. Key defenses included:
- No warranty coverage for theft : Apple's terms explicitly exclude stolen products.
- Feature dependency : The "findable after power off" relies on the "Find My" feature being pre-enabled and the device on cellular/Wi-Fi. Apple's support emails ( ) informed Mohmmed post-theft that it wasn't active until then.
- User responsibility : Encrypted "Find My" network prevents Apple from accessing locations; only the owner can.
- Precedents : Cited cases like SGS India Limited vs. Dolphin International (AIR 2021 SC 4849) to shift proof burden to complainant, alongside Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines ((2000) 1 SCC 66) and others emphasizing no duty to recover lost goods.
Mohmmed's rejoinder accused Apple of false claims, insisting the message had no preconditions visible and deserved blind trust as a premium buyer.
Unpacking the Fine Print: Why the Court Sided Against Apple
The Commission dissected the messaging flaw at the heart of the case. Unlike precedents where Apple wasn't tasked with recovery (e.g., Apple India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Harish Chandra Mohanty SLP(C) 18343/2021), here the issue was misleading communication . During hearings, Apple's counsel demoed clicking the message to reveal "Find My" needs—but the court noted no upfront asterisk, disclaimer, or prompt guided users.
This breached consumer protection norms on complete information , constituting and . The bench distinguished OP's citations, focusing squarely on the feature's presentation.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
-
"It is observed that this feature of I-phone i.e displayed 'I-phone findable after power off' informs the users that I-phone is findable even after being switched off however, it is noticed there is no asterisk (*) or any conditions apply attached to this statement made by OP which would inform the user that something more is required to be done for this feature to be active."
-
"The user would take the statement to be true and a complete statement as there is no pre-condition attached to it."
-
"The judgments relied on by the OP pertain to cases where Apple was saddled with the task of finding the lost I-Phone and therefore are not applicable to the present case."
-
"This Commission finds OP 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 'I-phone findable after power off' is complete."
A Lakh-Worthy Lesson: Compensation and Broader Ripples
Apple must pay Rs 1 lakh to Mohmmed, falling short of his demands but validating his grievance. No refund or extra costs were awarded, emphasizing symbolic redress for misinformation.
This precedent could nudge tech firms toward bolder disclosures on feature limits, especially anti-theft tools amid rising device thefts. As outlets like legal news portals reported, it contrasts Supreme Court views on Apple's non-tracing duty, carving a niche for consumer messaging accountability . Future buyers might scrutinize those power-off screens twice.
Case:
