Apple sued by shareholders for allegedly overstating AI progress

Apple was sued on Friday by shareholders in a proposed securities fraud class action that accused it of downplaying how long it needed to integrate advanced artificial intelligence into its Siri voice assistant, hurting iPhone sales and its stock price.
The complaint covers shareholders who suffered potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of losses in the year ending June 9, when Apple introduced several features and aesthetic improvements for its products but kept AI changes modest.
Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment. CEO Tim Cook, Chief Financial Officer Kevan Parekh and former CFO Luca Maestri are also defendants in the lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court.
Shareholders led by Eric Tucker said that at its June 2024 Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple led them to believe AI would be a key driver of iPhone 16 devices, when it launched Apple Intelligence to make Siri more powerful and user-friendly.
But they said the Cupertino, California-based company lacked a functional prototype of AI-based Siri features, and could not reasonably believe the features would ever be ready for iPhone 16s.
Shareholders said the truth began to emerge on March 7 when Apple delayed some Siri upgrades to 2026, and continued through this year's Worldwide Developers Conference on June 9 when Apple's assessment of its AI progress disappointed analysts.
Apple shares have lost nearly one-fourth of their value since their December 26, 2024 record high, wiping out approximately $900 billion of market value.
The case is Tucker v. Apple Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 25-05197.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Times

14 minutes ago

• Business Times

Apple executives have held internal talks about buying AI startup Perplexity

[SAN FRANCISCO] Apple executives have held internal discussions about potentially bidding for artificial intelligence (AI) startup Perplexity AI, seeking to address the need for more AI talent and technology. Adrian Perica, the company's head of mergers and acquisitions, has weighed the idea with services chief Eddy Cue and top AI decision-makers, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The discussions are at an early stage and may not lead to an offer, said the sources, who asked not to be identified because the matter is private. Such a deal would help Apple develop an AI-based search engine, part of efforts to cope with the potential loss of a longstanding arrangement with Google. That partnership, which involves making Google the default browser on devices, generates roughly US$20 billion a year for Apple, and is now under threat from US antitrust enforcers. To date, Apple executives have not discussed a bid with Perplexity management. Bloomberg News reported earlier Friday that Meta Platforms tried to buy Perplexity earlier this year. 'We have no knowledge of any current or future M&A discussions involving Perplexity,' the AI startup said. Apple declined to comment. The Perplexity service provides real-time answers to questions using the latest information from the web. If Apple were to engage in talks to buy the startup, such a move likely would not happen until a decision is made in the Google antitrust trial. That's when Apple would know whether its lucrative Google agreement may have to be unwound. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Google shares reversed gains and fell nearly 1 per cent in late trading after Bloomberg reported on Apple's Perplexity discussions. Perplexity recently completed an investment round that valued it at US$14 billion. A deal anywhere near that level would be the largest acquisition in Apple's history. The company's biggest transaction until now remains the US$3 billion takeover of Beats in 2014 – though Apple made more recent billion US dollar deals for Intel Corp.'s modem unit and a stake in Chinese ride-sharing company DiDi. After Meta failed to reach an agreement with Perplexity, it bought a 49 per cent slice of Scale AI for US$14.3 billion. That deal is part of Meta's attempts to create a so-called superintelligence AI team, which will now include Scale co-founder Alexandr Wang. Perica and Cue, who both report to Apple chief executive officer Tim Cook, are leading the AI acquisition and recruiting efforts. The hunt for talent is part of a bid to catch up in generative AI. The company was slow to deliver its Apple Intelligence platform and still lags rivals in key features. A revamped Siri was delayed indefinitely this year, with the company now aiming to have it ready by next spring. Apple unveiled a relatively meagre slate of new AI enhancements at its Worldwide Developers Conference earlier this month. The latest features include live translation capabilities and a deeper partnership with OpenAI on ChatGPT-based image generation. Buying Perplexity would give Apple an infusion of AI talent, a known brand in the AI space and a consumer product. A deal could also potentially assist with future recruiting efforts. Apple has also discussed an alternative plan: teaming up with Perplexity instead of buying it. A partnership would involve adding Perplexity as an AI search engine option in Apple's Safari web browser and integrating it into Siri. Apple has met multiple times in recent months with Perplexity, and its AI team has been actively evaluating the technology – a sign that it's at least considering a close relationship with the company. One major snag in the process could be an in-the-works deal between Perplexity and Samsung Electronics, which plans to announce a deep partnership with the startup. Samsung is Apple's biggest competitor in smartphones, and AI features have become a critical new arena for the two rivals. In its statement, Perplexity said it should not be surprising that top manufacturers want to offer the 'best search and more accurate AI for their users.' 'That's Perplexity,' the startup said. Cue, whose department includes Apple's streaming services and iCloud, previously expressed an interest in Perplexity. While testifying at the Google antitrust trial in May, he told jurors that the industry is shifting away from standard Internet searches to AI tools. He outlined a scenario in which AI search engines could quickly supersede Google's current offering. 'We have been pretty impressed with what Perplexity has done, so we have started some discussions with them about what they are doing,' he said. BLOOMBERG

CNA

2 hours ago

• CNA

US auto safety agency reviewing Tesla answers on robotaxi deployment plans

WASHINGTON :U.S. highway safety regulators are reviewing answers Tesla gave in response to the agency's questions about the safety of its self-driving robotaxi in poor weather, the agency said on Friday, ahead of plans to deploy the vehicles as soon as this weekend. Tesla has sent invitations to a small group of people to join in a limited test of its robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, which is tentatively set to start on Sunday, according to posts and email screenshots on social media. In a letter last month, NHTSA asked Tesla to answer detailed questions by June 19 on its plans to launch paid robotaxi service in Austin, to assess how the electric vehicle maker's cars with full self-driving technology will perform in poor weather. The agency said it has received Tesla's response "and is in the process of reviewing it. Once our review has been completed the public file will be updated." Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The invitations said a Tesla employee will accompany riders in the front passenger seat, the posts showed. NHTSA asked Tesla if vehicles "will be supervised or otherwise monitored by Tesla in real time." NHTSA has been investigating Tesla full self-driving collisions in reduced roadway visibility conditions since October. The probe covers 2.4 million Tesla vehicles equipped with full self-driving technology after four reported collisions, including a 2023 fatal crash. The agency said in May it was seeking additional information about Tesla's development of robotaxis "to assess the ability of Tesla's system to react appropriately to reduced roadway visibility conditions" as well details on robotaxi deployment plans and the technology being used. NHTSA said in May it wants to know how many vehicles will be used as robotaxis and the expected timetable for availability of robotaxi technology for vehicles controlled by people other than Tesla. NHTSA's letter asked Tesla to describe how it intends to ensure the safety of robotaxi operations in reduced roadway visibility conditions such as sun glare, fog, airborne dust, rain, or snow. It also wants to know what happens if poor visibility is encountered during a ride.

Business Times

3 hours ago

• Business Times

AI and the disappearing pause

'IT'S interesting to see progress through the arc of time,' Google chief executive officer Sundar Pichai said recently on Lex Fridman's podcast. It aptly describes a huge shift happening in business right now; a change in how we even think about something as basic as time. Time used to be one of the few constants in global business. We had clear deadlines, synchronised news cycles, 'follow-the-sun' business models. New York would open for business as Singapore was winding down. The world had a predictable beat, even if not perfectly aligned. But something has shifted. We no longer share time. We consume it. And as we do, something else has stepped in to seemingly unify us: artificial intelligence (AI). Released recently, Apple's latest white paper, The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity, offered a timely warning about the limits of what we perceive as AI's true 'reasoning' capabilities, particularly when faced with increasing complexity. This research could not be more relevant, as we navigate a world where time itself feels fractured. Not just by time zone, but by our very experience of it. Our screens update instantly, yet our minds need more time to catch up. Trends explode in minutes, but decisions stretch across weeks. Some teams are 'on' 24/7, while others are experimenting with four-day weeks, all creating a fragmented sense of pace. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The clock is dead; long live the code AI has replaced traditional time as the driver of business speed. It works across time zones, never sleeps and always responds. AI is becoming the first thing everyone relies on. It is global, immediate and relentlessly consistent. Feed a business challenge into an AI tool and in less than a minute, a well-structured response will appear. Discuss it with the team and I assure you that someone will say, 'That's actually good enough to run with.' But that is precisely the problem. Not because it is inaccurate, because it probably is not. But because it is almost always predictably coherent. It offers no friction, no doubt. There would not be a spark of tension. This is where the real shift is happening. AI is collapsing time while expanding output. We get more done in less time. But in doing so, it threatens to erase something businesses have not yet learnt how to measure – the value of shared deliberation. Even Bill Gates, during a recent visit to Singapore, admitted, 'If I had a switch to slow down AI, I might use it.' It was a rare concession from one of technology's most persistent optimists, and a reminder that just because something moves fast, does not mean we are ready to move with it at the same pace. The disappearance of productive discomfort When humans worked to the same clock, decisions took time. But that time created space for discussion, disagreement or even deep reflection. Not all of it was efficient, but much of it was productive discomfort. Productive discomfort is that critical pause before commitment; the challenge before reaching consensus. AI, by contrast, skips the pause. It generates answers before humans even begin to ask follow-up questions. I am not saying it is wrong, but it removes resistance – which is the very thing that often leads to better insight. With less shared time and more AI, companies might move quickly but without much deep thought. This is not an argument against AI. It is an argument for reasserting intentional rhythm in a world where machines are increasingly dictating the pace at which we need to move. If AI is the new constant, then leaders must become designers of pace, friction and flow. That begins with reintroducing cadence. For example, how does one create deliberate moments where teams step back from tools and re-engage with deeper thought. Not all tasks require instant answers. We know this from years of human experience and insight. Next, we need to embrace useful pauses. Taking a bit more time should not be seen as a weakness. This strategic lag can bring back important context, deeper understanding and clearer thinking into our decisions. Finally, we need to tell the difference between 'fast' and 'finished'. Just because AI gives an instant answer does not mean the discussion is over. Often, that is where the real thinking should just begin. In short, we need to create thoughtful counterbalances to the hyper-efficiency AI enables. Do not get me wrong. This is not to slow progress, but to ensure we still know what progress means. The new role of leadership In the past, when everyone largely shared the same work hours, great leaders were like timekeepers. They set the pace, coordinated schedules and organised how work flowed. Today, their role has changed. Leaders must now become guardians of how we use time. They need to decide not only what tasks are completed, but also when they are done, how quickly and how much thought goes into them. We used to organise business around time. Now, increasingly, we organise it around AI. Leadership today should not be about rejecting the technology. It is about knowing when to slow it down. Deliberately, and for the right reasons. Because AI moves in seconds, but strategy and orchestration still takes time. The writer is head of Singapore at Sling & Stone