Delhi Consumer Commission Directs Apple India to Pay Rs. 1 Lakh for Deficiency in Service Over “iPhone Findable After Power Off” Feature

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (South District), Delhi has held Apple India guilty of deficiency in service for failing to clearly disclose the conditions required for the functioning of the feature stating “iPhone findable after power off.”

The Commission observed that the statement displayed on the device could reasonably lead users to believe that the phone would remain traceable even after being switched off, without indicating that the feature would work only if the “Find My” option had been enabled beforehand.

A Bench comprising President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal directed Apple India to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the complainant.

The Commission held that the company had failed to provide complete information regarding the functioning of the feature and that the absence of any visible disclaimer or condition alongside the message could mislead consumers into believing that the feature would operate automatically.

The Commission accordingly found Apple India guilty of deficiency in service and directed payment of compensation to the complainant.

The complaint was filed by Shan Mohmmed, a resident of Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, who had purchased an iPhone 13 in February, 2022 for Rs. 70,500 after upgrading from his earlier iPhone 11 Pro.

According to the complainant, he had been a long-time user of Apple devices since 2015 and relied on the company’s stated security features, including the message displayed while switching off the device that read “iPhone findable after power off.”

The complainant stated that he operated a business named Weather Cool Services and stored important information relating to approximately 500 clients on his mobile phone.

In September 2022, his iPhone along with other phones was stolen from his residence. An FIR was registered at Malviya Nagar Police Station under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

Following the theft, the complainant attempted to locate his device relying on the feature displayed on the phone indicating that it could be traced even after being switched off. However, despite multiple attempts through Apple’s website and iCloud services, he was unable to trace the device.

The complainant then contacted Apple’s customer support services and subsequently visited an authorised service outlet, but claimed that he received no assistance in locating the stolen device. He later issued a legal notice to Apple India alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, contending that the company’s representation regarding the device’s traceability had misled him.

The complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund of the cost of the phone along with compensation of Rs. 5 lakh and litigation costs of Rs. 35,000 for the mental agony and harassment allegedly suffered due to the company’s conduct.

Apple India, in its response before the Commission, denied the allegations and contended that the complaint had been filed with mala fide intent to derive undue benefit.

The company submitted that it had no legal or contractual obligation to trace a stolen device and that the responsibility for recovering stolen property lay with law enforcement authorities.

The company further argued that the iPhone warranty terms did not apply in cases where the device had been stolen.

It stated that the complainant had been informed by customer support that the feature relied upon by him, “iPhone findable after power off”, could function only if the “Find My” feature had been enabled on the device prior to the incident.

Apple submitted that the “Find My” feature operates through an encrypted network designed to protect user privacy and that the company itself cannot access the location of a user’s device.

According to Apple, only the user could track the device’s location through the “Find My” feature, provided it had been activated and the device remained within a network environment.

The company also relied on several judicial precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court relating to deficiency of service and consumer liability, to argue that the complainant had failed to establish negligence or deficiency on the part of Apple.

In his rejoinder, the complainant disputed Apple’s claim that the “Find My” feature had to be enabled for the functionality to operate. He argued that the message displayed on the phone did not contain any disclaimer, condition or asterisk indicating that additional settings were required for the feature to function.

After examining the record, including pleadings, evidence affidavits and written submissions filed by both parties, the Commission noted that the message displayed on the iPhone indicated that the device would remain findable even after power was switched off.

The Commission observed that the statement appeared as a complete representation and did not contain any visible indication that the functionality depended on the activation of another feature.

During the hearing, counsel for Apple demonstrated that if the message was clicked, the condition requiring the “Find My” feature to be enabled would become visible. However, the Commission noted that there was no visible guidance or prompt informing users that they needed to click on the message or enable another feature for the functionality to operate.

The Commission held that an ordinary consumer would reasonably rely on the displayed message and assume that the feature would function automatically.

In the absence of any asterisk, disclaimer or condition accompanying the statement, the Commission concluded that the information provided by Apple was incomplete and capable of misleading users.

The Commission further observed that the precedents cited by Apple related to cases where the company had been asked to locate stolen devices, which was not the issue in the present case.

Instead, the matter concerned whether the company had adequately disclosed the conditions governing the functionality of a feature represented to consumers.

Holding that Apple had failed to provide complete information regarding the functioning of the feature and thereby created a misleading impression for users, the Commission concluded that the company was guilty of deficiency in service.

Accordingly, Apple India was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the complainant.

Case Title: Shan Mohmmed v. Apple India

Bench: Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Kiran Kaushal (Member)

Date of Order: 26.02.2026