Nobody is denying the existence of batterygate. Apple now describe the throttling on their website. The class action is around the notification to the users whe

Nobody is denying the existence of batterygate. Apple now describe the throttling on their website. The class action is around the notification to the users when the feature first came out. If they got “caught” then the feature wouldn’t still exist today, but it does. > Then when they got caught they came up with plausible deniability. This is the bit you need to prove. You are implying that they were maliciously doing something underhand rather than implementing a feature to stop degraded batteries causing reboots. How do you implement the exact features required for degraded battery management when you are trying to do something else like slow phones to sell more? That’s the bit you need to explain.