The iPhone battery fiasco continues with a rather uncanny demand, as a law firm starting legal action against Apple wants the company to keep the degraded units and not recycle them because they could serve as evidence in other lawsuits. 

In a statement today, DiCello Levitt & Casey explains that Apple should suspend the battery replacement program, as well as the battery recycling program that the company operates because each unit can be used “to protect the claims of all affected consumers.”

Apple acknowledged in late December that it deliberately slowed down iPhone models with degraded batteries in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns. The company also launched a battery replacement program with a major discount for the repairs from $79 to $29 if the servicing takes place by the end of the year.

“Apple deceived customers” 

As it’s the case of the other class-action lawsuits started against Apple following the company’s acknowledgement last month, this new legal dispute states that Cupertino tricked customers into buying new models by not telling them that a simple battery replacement would have addressed performance issues.

“Apple sold these devices to consumers, touting excellent battery life and fast processing speeds. Customers relied on those statements, not knowing that the devices had a defect that could cause their phones to shut down without warning, or that the iOS updates that Apple rolled out to purportedly address the battery problems would dramatically slow down their phones,” the lawsuit reads.

“Apple deceived many of its customers into buying brand new iPhones by rolling out its iOS throttling software, causing them material financial damages.”

Apple hasn’t issued a statement on all these cases on iPhone battery slowdowns, but the company is also required to detail the issue by authorities in several countries, including the United States and China. Furthermore, France has already started an investigation against the firm, and this could end up with a hefty fine for the company if it’s found guilty of planned obsolescence.

LEAVE A REPLY