Apple's $250 Million Apple Intelligence Settlement: $25 Per Device, Claims Open

Apple's $250 Million Apple Intelligence Settlement: $25 Per Device, Claims Open

A federal judge in San Jose has preliminarily approved a $250 million class action settlement over how Apple advertised Apple Intelligence upgrades to Siri. Claims are open to buyers of seven iPhone models purchased in the United States between June 2024 and March 2025.

Information last verified on October 3, 2026.

Status: Preliminary approval only. Judge Noel Wise granted preliminary approval on July 17, 2026 (ECF No. 94), and the final approval hearing is set for February 24, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 on the 5th floor of the federal courthouse in San Jose. The settlement is not final. The preliminary approval order states that the parties "shall not begin any payment of claims without Final Approval of the Court," and no payments will issue before final approval and the resolution of any appeals.

Jurisdiction scope: This settlement arises in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and covers purchases made in the United States by US residents. It does not reach devices bought outside the United States, devices bought for resale, or models outside the seven listed above. Nothing here describes the law of any other country.

What Happened

Apple introduced Apple Intelligence at its Worldwide Developers Conference on June 10, 2024, and the advertising that followed leaned heavily on a version of Siri that could draw on a user's personal context. The original complaint quotes Apple's own promotional language, including the claim that Siri "will be able to deliver intelligence that's tailored to the user and their on-device information," with examples such as asking Siri to play a podcast a friend had recommended or to find when a family member's flight lands.

Those specific Siri capabilities did not ship with the iPhone 16 line. On March 7, 2025, Apple publicly said the upgraded Siri features would take longer than expected. The complaint alleges Apple then pulled a September 2024 television commercial featuring the personalized Siri experience from YouTube while leaving the broader marketing claims in the market.

Peter Landsheft filed the first putative class action on March 19, 2025 in the Northern District of California. Seven other cases were filed in or transferred to the same court and consolidated with it: Hopkins, Martin, Varbanovski, Accardi, Feldt, Robinson, and Norman. The court appointed Ryan J. Clarkson of Clarkson Law Firm, Brian Danitz of Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, and Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer as co-lead counsel.

Apple moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2025, arguing among other things that plaintiffs had failed to allege reliance on any specific misstatement. Briefing on that motion closed on December 3, 2025, and the court never ruled on it. Instead the parties mediated three times before retired judge Layn R. Phillips, on October 24, 2025, December 8, 2025, and March 23, 2026, and reached the settlement now before the court.

No litigation class was ever certified. Judge Wise conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes only, which is a materially different thing: it means the court found the class workable for the limited purpose of resolving the case, not that it would have held up through trial.

One group of named plaintiffs, represented by Pomerantz LLP, opposed preliminary approval. Their argument was that the deal "does not appropriately distinguish between the vastly differing values of the claims of different class members" and that the court should create subclasses. Judge Wise rejected it, writing that "the underlying value of the Enhanced Siri features is the same across all Eligible Devices," and noting that those plaintiffs had not raised the point or proposed a subclass in their own pleadings.

Who Is Eligible

The preliminary approval order certifies a nationwide settlement class defined as:

Purchasers of the Eligible Devices (iPhone 16, iPhone 16e, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro, iPhone 16 Pro Max, iPhone 15 Pro, or iPhone 15 Pro Max) who reside in the United States and purchased an Eligible Device in the United States for purposes other than resale, during the Class Period (June 10, 2024, to March 29, 2025).

Note what that definition does not include. The iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus are not on the list, only the 15 Pro and 15 Pro Max. Purchases outside the United States are out. So are purchases for resale. Apple itself, its directors, officers, employees, legal representatives, successors and assigns, and entities Apple controls are excluded, as are the judicial officers assigned to the case along with their staff and immediate family.

A class member may submit a claim for each eligible device they bought during the class period, not just one. The claim form asks the claimant to confirm three things: that they bought the device in the United States between June 10, 2024 and March 29, 2025; information sufficient to confirm the purchase, such as a serial number, Apple Account ID, or the phone number associated with the device; and that at the time of purchase they expected to receive a Siri Apple Intelligence feature and did not receive it. Under the settlement agreement the form does not require a certification under penalty of perjury unless the court orders otherwise.

Recording Law is not the settlement administrator, is not affiliated with the court or with Apple, and does not accept claim information of any kind. The court appointed Verita Global, LLC as settlement administrator, and filing happens only through the official settlement website or the materials Verita mails and emails to class members.

What the Payment Would Be

The realistic number to plan around is $25 per eligible device, not $95.

The settlement agreement sets a "presumptive payment from the Net Settlement Amount of $25 per Eligible Device." If the total value of valid claims comes in below the net fund, the per-device payment rises on a pro rata basis up to a cap of $95. If valid claims exceed the net fund, the per-device payment falls on a pro rata basis with no floor. Judge Wise added a safeguard in the preliminary approval order: before any claims are paid, the parties must report to the court if any class member's payment would exceed the $95 cap.

"Net Settlement Amount" is the number that matters, and it is the $250 million fund minus several deductions that come off the top. Based on the figures in the filings, those are: attorneys' fees, which class counsel said they will request in an amount not to exceed 28 percent of the fund or $70,000,000; litigation expenses class counsel estimated at not more than $600,000; notice and administration costs estimated at approximately $5,444,056; and service awards that class counsel will request at not more than $2,000 per named plaintiff. If the court awarded the full fee request, the remaining pool for claimants would be roughly $174 million.

That arithmetic matters because of class size. Plaintiffs' damages expert put the number of eligible devices sold during the class period at 37,078,131. The following is our own calculation from those filed figures, not a finding in any court document: a net pool of roughly $174 million paid at $25 per device would fund about 7 million devices, on the order of a 19 percent claims rate. Below that, payments can rise toward the cap. Above it, they shrink. No filing states a projected claims rate, and the court has not approved any fee or cost award yet, so every input to that estimate can still change. Class counsel's own filing acknowledges the payment "may be increased or decreased pro rata depending on the total number of valid claims submitted."

Payment comes by physical check or by digital payment, with Venmo and PayPal named in the filings as options. Under the settlement agreement, valid claims are paid within 60 calendar days after the Effective Date, which does not arrive until final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. Checks must be cashed within 120 calendar days of disbursement, with a reissuance window of 150 days.

For comparison on scale, our settlement tracker follows the per-claimant arithmetic across consumer class actions, and the pattern here is ordinary: large headline fund, modest individual payment, final figure unknown until the claims period closes.

This is a different case from the Siri privacy settlement

Two Apple cases involving Siri have reached settlement, and they are routinely confused.

The Apple Siri privacy settlement is Lopez v. Apple, a $95 million settlement about unintended Siri activations and recordings. It paid roughly $20 per Siri-enabled device, and its money was distributed beginning in January 2026. That case is over. A comparable voice-assistant privacy matter is the Google Assistant settlement.

The case described in this article is Landsheft v. Apple, a false advertising case about Apple Intelligence marketing. Different fund, different class, different devices, different deadline. Filing in one has no bearing on the other.

What the Law Actually Says

The underlying claims are consumer protection claims, not privacy claims. The consolidated amended complaint asserted violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code sections 1750 et seq.), the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq.), the California False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code sections 17500 et seq.), and the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code sections 1790 et seq.), along with the consumer protection statutes of 37 other states and common law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.

The damages theory is the standard one in California false advertising cases, known as the price premium theory: the plaintiff does not claim the product was worthless, but that the advertised feature carried a measurable share of the price. Plaintiffs' survey expert ran a choice-based conjoint analysis and concluded the premium attributable to moving from basic Siri to an AI-enhanced Siri was 5.5 percent of device cost. Applied to an average sale price of roughly $1,110 across about 37 million devices, that produced a maximum classwide damages figure of $2,264,064,781, or about $61.06 per device. The $250 million fund is approximately 11 percent of that maximum.

Apple's counter-position is recorded in the settlement agreement itself. Apple has "delivered more than 20 Apple Intelligence features and anticipates delivering additional Siri Apple Intelligence features in future software updates at no additional cost." Class counsel told the court this created a real risk of zero recovery, citing authority holding that once a software update delivers the promised capability, purchasers "now have just what they paid for."

The approval framework is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). A class settlement binds people who never hired a lawyer, so the rule makes judicial approval mandatory. Under Rule 23(e)(2), a court may approve only after a hearing and only on finding the deal fair, reasonable, and adequate, considering whether the class representatives and class counsel adequately represented the class, whether the proposal was negotiated at arm's length, whether the relief is adequate given the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the effectiveness of the distribution method, the terms of the fee award, and whether the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other. Rule 23(e)(5) gives any class member the right to object. Judge Wise also measured the deal against the Northern District of California's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements.

Preliminary approval decides only that the settlement is within the range that could ultimately be approved and that notice to the class is warranted. The order is explicit that it "does not make any determination as to the merits of this case" and that preliminary approval "is not a finding or admission of liability by Defendant."

The release is broad. Class members who do not opt out release all claims occurring before the Effective Date that are based on, arise out of, or relate to the same facts underlying the claims about the eligible devices, including claims they do not know about, with a waiver of California Civil Code section 1542. The release carves out bodily and personal injury claims, property damage, product liability claims, claims to enforce the settlement itself, and two separate Apple cases: a securities action brought by the City of Coral Springs Police Officers Pension Plan and In re Apple Inc. AI Derivative Litigation.

What Happens Next

The schedule in the preliminary approval order runs off a single anchor, the Notice Date, and that anchor has moved.

The order set the Notice Date at 45 calendar days after entry of preliminary approval, and then set the claims deadline, the objection deadline, and the exclusion deadline all at 90 calendar days after the Notice Date. On August 28, 2026 the docket records a "STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Settlement Notice Date, Claims Deadline, and Objection and Exclusion Deadlines" filed by Apple (ECF No. 98), and an order granting that stipulation entered the same day (ECF No. 99). Neither document has been released into the public RECAP archive, and the docket text for the order states only that the stipulation was granted. We could not read either one, so we cannot report the court-set dates from the court's own order.

Verita Global, the court-appointed administrator, publishes a claim deadline of December 21, 2026 for this matter on its own case archive, where the entry is titled "Smartphone AI Settlement" and links to the official claims site. We are reporting that as the administrator's published figure, not as a date we read in a court order. The official settlement website, smartphoneaisettlement.com, blocked every automated request we made, so we could not independently read the deadline there. Anyone considering a claim should open that site directly and confirm the current date before relying on it.

The rest of the sequence is fixed by the preliminary approval order. Class counsel must file their motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards 35 calendar days before the objection and exclusion deadline, and the administrator must post that motion on the settlement website within three days of filing. Opt-outs must be individual and in writing, submitted by mail with a postmark by the exclusion deadline or by email to the administrator; so-called class or mass opt-outs are not recognized. Objections must go to the court, by ECF or by mail, and must state the objector's identity, information showing class membership, a detailed statement of the grounds, whether the objection applies to the objector alone or to the class, and a list of objections the objector or their counsel has filed in the past five years.

The motion for final approval is due 35 calendar days before the hearing. The final approval hearing was originally set for September 29, 2027. Class counsel moved on July 27, 2026 to advance it, arguing that an earlier hearing would speed payment to class members, and Apple took no position. Judge Wise granted that motion on August 13, 2026 and moved the hearing to February 24, 2027 at 9:00 a.m.

If the court grants final approval and no appeal is filed, the Effective Date follows and claims are paid within 60 days. If an appeal is filed, payment waits. The settlement agreement anticipates that scenario expressly, requiring Apple to fund the remainder of the $250 million within one year of the final approval order if an appeal is pending. The court has also stayed the underlying litigation and enjoined class members from pursuing the released claims elsewhere unless they opt out.

If final approval is denied or the settlement collapses, the preliminary approval order becomes null and void by its own terms, the parties return to their pre-settlement positions, and the balance of the fund, less administration costs already spent, goes back to Apple within 30 days.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The most useful thing about this settlement is what it tests. Most consumer false advertising cases fight about what a product is. This one fights about what a product was promised to become. Apple's defense was not that the Siri features were delivered, it was that they will be delivered, free, in a future update, and that a delivered feature erases the premium a buyer paid for it. That argument has real support in the case law, and class counsel said so in their own filing when they justified accepting roughly 11 percent of their expert's damages number.

That is the structural question the software era keeps producing and courts have not settled. When a company sells a device on the strength of capabilities that arrive by update, how long is the gap between purchase and delivery allowed to run before the sale becomes a misrepresentation rather than a roadmap? The complaint's answer was that a two-year gap, marketed as present-tense capability, is a misrepresentation. Apple's answer was that an eventual free update makes the buyer whole. Because the parties settled before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, no judge in this case answered it.

The second thing worth noticing is the administrative one, and it is the reason this article hedges a date. The deadline that matters to a reader is set by a court order that the public cannot read. The stipulation and the order granting it are both sitting behind PACER with no copy in the free archive, and the administrator's claims site refuses automated access entirely. The result is that the single most consequential fact about an open claims process, the day it closes, reaches the public through a line on a vendor's marketing page and through press releases. That is a thin channel for something with a hard legal consequence, and it is exactly the gap that fake claim sites exploit. If you are checking a deadline for any settlement, go to the administrator's site named in the court's order, not to whatever ranks first in a search. Our guide to recognizing fraudulent claim sites covers the patterns.

Third, the $25 figure deserves to be read as the number it is. Headlines will lead with $250 million and some will lead with $95. The $95 is a ceiling that only materializes if participation is low, and the notice program here was built specifically to drive participation high, with direct email and mail notice to most class members using purchase data Apple itself supplies. Those two facts point in opposite directions. A notice program that works well makes the $95 cap less likely to be reached, not more. Readers who paid roughly $1,110 for a phone partly on the strength of a Siri demo should calibrate to $25 per device and treat anything above it as a surprise.

Finally, the pattern is familiar from enforcement work elsewhere. Regulators and private plaintiffs alike have been pressing on the gap between what a marketing claim conveys and what the seller can substantiate, as in the FTC's action over Amway's earnings claims. The common thread is substantiation at the moment of the claim. A feature that exists in a product roadmap is not the same as a feature that exists in the box, and the price a consumer pays is set at the moment of purchase.

This article is not legal advice. It summarizes publicly filed court documents in one case as of October 3, 2026, and nothing in it establishes an attorney-client relationship or tells any individual whether to file a claim, object, or opt out. Deadlines and settlement terms change by court order. Verify the current deadline and your own options on the official settlement website or with a licensed attorney in your state before acting.

Related articles

• Data breach and consumer settlement tracker
• Apple Siri privacy settlement: paid, $20 per device
• Google Assistant privacy settlement
• FTC action over Amway earnings claims
• Scams and fraud: spotting fake settlement claim sites

Last updated: 2026-10-03. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-03.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this settlement final?

No. The court granted preliminary approval on July 17, 2026 and set a final approval hearing for February 24, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. in San Jose. The preliminary approval order expressly states that the parties shall not begin any payment of claims without final approval, and no payments will issue until after final approval and the resolution of any appeals. Preliminary approval is also not a finding that Apple did anything wrong.

What is the claim deadline?

The preliminary approval order set the claims deadline at 90 calendar days after the Notice Date, but a stipulation and an order entered August 28, 2026 extended the Notice Date along with the claims, objection, and exclusion deadlines. Those two documents are not publicly available, so the court-set date cannot be read from the docket. Verita Global, the court-appointed administrator, publishes a claim deadline of December 21, 2026 on its own case archive. Confirm the current date on the official settlement website, smartphoneaisettlement.com, before relying on any date, including that one.

Which iPhone models are covered?

Seven models: iPhone 16, iPhone 16e, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro, iPhone 16 Pro Max, iPhone 15 Pro, and iPhone 15 Pro Max. The base iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus are not included. The device must have been purchased in the United States, by a US resident, for purposes other than resale, between June 10, 2024 and March 29, 2025.

How much is the payment per device?

The presumptive payment is $25 per eligible device. That figure can increase pro rata up to a cap of $95 per device if the total value of valid claims is less than the net fund, and it can decrease pro rata if valid claims exceed the net fund. The settlement agreement states the final amount is not known until all claims are evaluated, and the court required the parties to report to it before paying any class member more than $95.

Can I claim for more than one device?

The long form notice states that class members may submit a claim for each eligible device they purchased in the United States during the class period, and must confirm for each purchase that they expected to receive Siri Apple Intelligence features that they did not receive.

Is this the same as the Apple Siri privacy settlement?

No. The Siri privacy settlement is Lopez v. Apple, a separate $95 million case about unintended Siri recordings that paid roughly $20 per Siri-enabled device and distributed its funds starting in January 2026. The case in this article, Landsheft v. Apple, is a false advertising case about Apple Intelligence marketing with its own $250 million fund, its own class, and its own deadlines.

What do I give up if I do nothing?

A class member who does not submit a valid request for exclusion is bound by the settlement and releases all claims occurring before the Effective Date that relate to the facts underlying this lawsuit about the eligible devices, including claims they do not currently know about, with a waiver of California Civil Code section 1542. Bodily and personal injury claims, property damage, product liability claims, and two separate Apple cases are carved out of the release. Not filing a claim does not preserve those released claims; only a timely exclusion request does.

Can Recording Law file a claim for me?

No. Recording Law is not the settlement administrator, is not affiliated with the court or with Apple, and never collects claim information. The court appointed Verita Global, LLC as administrator. Claims are filed only through the official settlement website or the claim materials the administrator sends to class members.