Apple is currently grappling with a federal lawsuit that alleges false advertising and unfair competition related to the delayed rollout of its "Apple Intelligence" features, including a highly anticipated personalized Siri.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, claiming that Apple's promotional efforts created consumer expectations that the promised features would be available at the iPhone 16's launch. Instead, consumers encountered significantly limited or entirely absent functionalities, leading to accusations that the company misled its customers about the true capabilities of its products.

Axiom reports(via 9to5Mac) that the lawsuit has been initiated by Clarkson Law Firm, which has a history of taking on major tech companies, including Google and OpenAI. It cites how Apple saturated various media channels with ads to promote features updates such as Image Playground and Genmoji, and how the hype around these offerings drove consumers to purchase the new iPhone 16 at a premium price.

Following the announcement of the delays, Apple took down its YouTube advertisement for the personalized Siri and added disclaimers on its website regarding feature availability—but the plaintiffs argue that the company has not adequately retracted all misleading representations made since the summer of 2024.

The legal filing highlights that, despite acknowledging the delay, Apple's advertising campaigns fostered unreasonable consumer expectations and did not match the actual product performance. As a result, the lawsuit may seek unspecified damages for those who purchased devices under the impression that they would have access to these advanced features. With this case, Apple is likely facing mounting scrutiny not only for its advertising practices, but also for how it manages consumer trust in a competitive tech landscape. The implications of this lawsuit could set a significant precedent for marketing accountability in the technology sector.

Apple recently lost an antitrust appeal in Germany, when The Federal Court of Justice upheld a decision to designate it as a company of paramount cross-market significance for competition.