Apple fails to end lawsuit claiming it 'broke' FaceTime

Apple Inc. has failed in its bid for a dismissal of a lawsuit claiming it disabled the popular FaceTime video conferencing feature on older iPhones to force users to upgrade.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, based in San Jose, Calif., ruled late on Friday thatiPhone 4 and 4S users can pursue countrywide class action claimsthat Apple intentionally "broke" FaceTime to save money fromrouting calls through servers owned by Akamai Technologies Inc.

Neither Apple nor lawyers for the plaintiffs immediatelyresponded on Monday to requests for comment.

• 'Piece of crap': Apple hit with proposed class action lawsuits over iPhone 'touch disease'
• Apple posts surprise drop in iPhone sales

Apple began using Akamai's servers after losing a lawsuit in2012 in which VirnetX Holding Corp claimed that FaceTimetechnology infringed its patents.

Testimony from a 2016 retrial in that case showed that Applepaid Akamai $50 million in one six-month period.

The plaintiffs said Apple eventually created a cheaperalternative for its iOS 7 operating system, and in April 2014disabled FaceTime on iOS 6 and earlier systems.

Koh said the plaintiffs alleged some measurable loss totheir phones' value, and could try to show that Cupertino,Calif.-based Apple's conduct constituted a trespass andviolated state consumer protection laws.

Users 'basically screwed'

The judge twice quoted from whatthe plaintiffs said was an Apple employee's internal emailcharacterizing iOS 6 users as "basically screwed" because of thedisabling of FaceTime.

She also rejected Apple's argument that the plaintiffssuffered no economic loss because FaceTime was a "free" service.

"FaceTime is a 'feature' of the iPhone and thus a componentof the iPhone's cost," Koh said in a footnote. "Indeed, Appleadvertised FaceTime as 'one more thing that makes an iPhone aniPhone.'"

The plaintiffs are led by Christina Grace, of Marin County,Calif., and Ken Potter, of San Diego Countywhoboth owned the iPhone 4. Akamai was not named as a defendant.

The case is Grace et al v Apple Inc, U.S. District Court,Northern District of California, No. 17-00551.