# Apple's $250M Siri settlement: the price of an over-promised Apple Intelligence, in the public record

> Apple agreed to a $250 million settlement in Landsheft v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal.), a consumer class action alleging it marketed Apple Intelligence and an upgraded Siri as available on the iPhone 16 and iPhone 15 Pro when those AI features had not shipped; the court preliminarily approved the deal on July 17, 2026, paying roughly 36 million U.S. devices $25 each, up to $95 if claims run low.

- Verification status: verified
- Case type: deployment
- Provider: Apple Inc. (Apple Intelligence / Siri)
- Client: U.S. iPhone purchaser class, Landsheft v. Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), Consumer technology / generative AI (named)
- Sector: software / US / marketing
- Verified on: 2026-08-28
- Canonical URL: https://theinternetninja.com/stories/landsheft-v-apple-250m-settlement-apple-intelligence-siri-overpromised-ai-features-2026/
- Source: The Internet Ninja (theinternetninja.com), independent verified-proof platform

## Verification method

Primary source: the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's [PROPOSED] Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Landsheft v. Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW, ECF No. 94, filed July 17, 2026 (local capture SHA-1 6fcd335d3dc51ab0f6a953581f057f9843a8ba41, Wayback-archived), which carries the case, class definition, purchase window, class counsel, preliminary approval, and the September 29, 2027 final-approval hearing. The $25/$95 per-device schedule is stated verbatim in that order, and the over-promise allegation is quoted from the operative Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 76, filed May 1, 2026); the $250M gross fund and the ~36M class size are corroborated by four mutually independent tech-press reports (AppleInsider, The Next Web, TechCrunch, 9to5Mac), each read verbatim this session and Wayback-archived.

## Full case file

**Verification status: IN CHECKING, handed to the checker; not publish-ready, not `pending`, not verified. Green is human-only.**

## The problem
When Apple introduced the iPhone 16 line and the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max, it marketed the phones as a breakthrough in on-device generative AI under the Apple Intelligence brand, with a substantially upgraded Siri as the centerpiece ([source](https://thenextweb.com/news/apple-250m-siri-settlement-landsheft-class-action)). A consumer class action, *Landsheft v. Apple Inc.*, brought by named plaintiff Peter Landsheft in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW), alleged those AI features were over-promised: according to the complaint, Apple advertised "AI capabilities that did not exist at the time, do not exist now, and will not exist for two or more years" ([source](https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/05/05/lawsuit-over-delayed-siri-features-reaches-massive-250m-settlement)). Reporting the settlement, TechCrunch summarized the core allegation as a claim that "Apple exaggerated the breadth of features Apple Intelligence would bring" ([source](https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/06/apple-to-pay-250m-to-settle-lawsuit-over-siris-delayed-ai-features/)). The operative filing itself, the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 76, filed May 1, 2026), puts the allegation in the plaintiffs' own words: after buying an iPhone 16 and setting it up, a named plaintiff found the phone "did not have the promised features and is substantially inferior to what Apple advertised" ([source](https://clarksonlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/0076.-05-01-2026-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-Second-Consolidated-Amended-Class-Action-Complaint-against-Apple-Inc.-Filed-by-Mic.pdf)). The complaint further alleged Apple's advertisements "saturated the internet, television, and other airwaves to cultivate a clear and reasonable consumer expectation that these transformative features would be available upon the iPhone's release" ([source](https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/05/05/lawsuit-over-delayed-siri-features-reaches-massive-250m-settlement)).

## What was built
The disputed product is Apple Intelligence, Apple's on-device and Private-Cloud generative-AI system, and specifically the enhanced Siri assistant marketed alongside the iPhone 16 launch as able to act with awareness across a user's apps ([source](https://thenextweb.com/news/apple-250m-siri-settlement-landsheft-class-action)). The resolution being examined here is not a product but a settlement: a $250 million, non-reversionary cash fund resolving the class claims, negotiated by class counsel Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP ([source](https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/07/gov.uscourts.cand_.446692.94.0_1.pdf)). The court preliminarily approved that settlement "as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, as falling within the range of possible final approval," after holding a hearing on the motion on July 8, 2026 ([source](https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/07/gov.uscourts.cand_.446692.94.0_1.pdf)).

## The outcome
Apple agreed to pay $250 million to settle the case; as AppleInsider reported, "the parties settled for $250 million, offering U.S. Settlement Class Members $25 per eligible device" ([source](https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/05/05/lawsuit-over-delayed-siri-features-reaches-massive-250m-settlement)). The Next Web put the same figure firsthand: "Apple agreed to pay $250m to settle a US federal class action over the marketing of Apple Intelligence-powered Siri features" ([source](https://thenextweb.com/news/apple-250m-siri-settlement-landsheft-class-action)). The base payment is $25 per eligible device, rising to as much as $95 per device if the number of valid claims is low ([source](https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/05/05/lawsuit-over-delayed-siri-features-reaches-massive-250m-settlement)), a schedule the court's own order states directly: claimants are entitled to "a presumptive payment from the Net Settlement Amount of $25 per Eligible Device," with "a per-device cap of $95" ([source](https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/07/gov.uscourts.cand_.446692.94.0_1.pdf)). The class is large: the settlement "will pay between $25 and $95 per eligible device to roughly 36 million US iPhone 16 and iPhone 15 Pro owners who purchased between 10 June 2024 and 29 March 2025" ([source](https://thenextweb.com/news/apple-250m-siri-settlement-landsheft-class-action)), and that purchase window of June 10, 2024 to March 29, 2025 is fixed in the court's own order ([source](https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/07/gov.uscourts.cand_.446692.94.0_1.pdf)). The approval so far is preliminary, not final: Apple's "settlement proposal received signed preliminary approval from a judge last week after a hearing that occurred on July 8," and "the final approval hearing for payouts (not just the terms of the deal) isn't until September 29, 2027" ([source](https://9to5mac.com/2026/07/24/apples-250-million-siri-settlement-just-got-approved-heres-who-gets-paid/)). The court's order confirms that date as the "Final Approval Hearing to determine final approval of the Agreement on September 29, 2027" ([source](https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/07/gov.uscourts.cand_.446692.94.0_1.pdf)). These are allegations resolved by settlement, not an adjudicated finding that Apple deceived consumers.

## A note on sourcing
The procedural spine of this account (that the case exists, who the class is, the purchase window, class counsel, preliminary approval, and the 2027 final-approval hearing) rests on the court's own preliminary-approval order (Source 1, Tier 1). Two of the substantive claims are now anchored to primary filings as well: the $25 base and $95 per-device cap are stated verbatim in that order (which quotes the Settlement Agreement's schedule), and the over-promise allegation is quoted from the operative Second Consolidated Amended Complaint itself (Source 6, Tier 1). The weakest load-bearing figure that remains is the $250 million gross fund total and the ~36 million device count: neither is restated in the order, so both rest on independent tech-press reports (Sources 2 to 5, Tier 2). Four mutually independent outlets agree on those numbers, but the gross fund total lives in the Settlement Agreement, not in any document reproduced here.

## How this was verified
- **Method:** Every quoted figure was read verbatim this session from the fetched sources: the Northern District of California's preliminary-approval order (ECF No. 94; local capture SHA-1 `6fcd335d3dc51ab0f6a953581f057f9843a8ba41`), the operative Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 76, filed 2026-05-01; local capture SHA-1 `4b7b6d7097cbf338cc77ceb9617dc0df44c8fac0`), and four independent tech-press reports, each Wayback-archived. No number is paraphrased, rounded, or recalled.
- **Standard:** Court-origin. The outcome *is* the preliminarily approved settlement, so the public record, not any subject's confirmation, is the proof; green never depends on Apple or the plaintiffs agreeing.
- **Independence:** The per-device schedule ($25 base, $95 cap) and the over-promise allegation are both anchored to primary court filings (the order and the operative complaint); the $250 million gross fund and the ~36 million device count are corroborated by four mutually independent Tier-2 outlets (AppleInsider, The Next Web, TechCrunch, 9to5Mac), each carrying the figures firsthand.
- **Open item for green:** Only the $250 million gross fund total and the ~36 million class-size count still rest on press rather than the primary instrument; both would move to Tier 1 from the Settlement Agreement / Motion for Preliminary Approval (ECF No. 77, 5:25-cv-02668-NW). The procedural anchor, the per-device schedule, and the over-promise allegation are already primary.
- **Verified on:** research settled 2026-08-27.

## Sources
1. **U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.** · [PROPOSED] Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, *Landsheft v. Apple Inc.*, No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW, ECF No. 94 · filed 2026-07-17 · https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/07/gov.uscourts.cand_.446692.94.0_1.pdf (archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20260724175441/https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/07/gov.uscourts.cand_.446692.94.0_1.pdf). **Tier 1** (primary court document).
2. **AppleInsider** · "Lawsuit over delayed Siri features reaches massive $250M settlement" · 2026-05-05 · https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/05/05/lawsuit-over-delayed-siri-features-reaches-massive-250m-settlement (archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20260827105733/https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/05/05/lawsuit-over-delayed-siri-features-reaches-massive-250m-settlement). **Tier 2** (independent trade press).
3. **The Next Web** · "Apple settles the consumer Siri lawsuit for $250M" · 2026-05-05 · https://thenextweb.com/news/apple-250m-siri-settlement-landsheft-class-action (archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20260827105752/https://thenextweb.com/news/apple-250m-siri-settlement-landsheft-class-action). **Tier 2** (independent press).
4. **TechCrunch** · "Apple to pay $250M to settle lawsuit over Siri's delayed AI features" · 2026-05-06 · https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/06/apple-to-pay-250m-to-settle-lawsuit-over-siris-delayed-ai-features/ (archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20260827105854/https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/06/apple-to-pay-250m-to-settle-lawsuit-over-siris-delayed-ai-features/). **Tier 2** (independent press).
5. **9to5Mac** · "Apple's $250 million Siri settlement just got approved: here's who gets paid" · 2026-07-24 · https://9to5mac.com/2026/07/24/apples-250-million-siri-settlement-just-got-approved-heres-who-gets-paid/ (archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20260827105908/https://9to5mac.com/2026/07/24/apples-250-million-siri-settlement-just-got-approved-heres-who-gets-paid/). **Tier 2** (independent press).
6. **U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.** · Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, *Landsheft v. Apple Inc.*, No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW, ECF No. 76 · filed 2026-05-01 · https://clarksonlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/0076.-05-01-2026-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-Second-Consolidated-Amended-Class-Action-Complaint-against-Apple-Inc.-Filed-by-Mic.pdf (archived: http://web.archive.org/web/20260827123140/https://clarksonlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/0076.-05-01-2026-AMENDED-COMPLAINT-Second-Consolidated-Amended-Class-Action-Complaint-against-Apple-Inc.-Filed-by-Mic.pdf). **Tier 1** (primary court document; operative complaint, file-stamped "Case 5:25-cv-02668-NW Document 76 Filed 05/01/26").

## Related case files
- [FTC v. Workado, an AI content detector advertised at 98% accuracy that independent testing put at 53%](/stories/ftc-workado-ai-content-detector-98pct-claimed-53pct-actual-accuracy-final-order-2025/): the same gap between a marketed AI capability and the delivered one, reached through a regulator rather than a class action.
- [SEC AI-washing action against Rimar Capital: $310,000 in civil penalties for overstated AI](/stories/sec-ai-washing-rimar-capital-itai-liptz-310000-civil-penalties-2024/): AI-washing named as such by a federal regulator, the enforcement counterpart to this private redress.
- [FTC v. DoNotPay, the "world's first robot lawyer" and $193,000 over deceptive AI claims](/stories/ftc-donotpay-ai-robot-lawyer-193k-monetary-relief-final-order-2025/): another AI product whose marketed abilities outran what it could do.
- [SEC AI-washing order: Presto's drive-thru "voice AI" needed a human on every order](/stories/sec-ai-washing-presto-automation-voice-ai-drive-thru-human-agents-cease-and-desist-2025/): the same gap between a marketed AI capability and the delivered one, here in operations rather than consumer marketing, reached by a regulator.