Apple Inc. is facing a high-profile securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California, stemming from its public rollout and marketing of advanced AI features – particularly those tied to Siri – at its 2024 Worldwide Developers Conference (“WWDC”). According to the complaint, which was filed on June 20 by Apple shareholder Eric Tucker, Apple and key executives misled shareholders by touting non-existent or undeveloped Siri capabilities to boost iPhone 16 sales, inflating the company’s stock price in the process.
At the heart of Tucker’s lawsuit is “Apple Intelligence,” the tech giant’s ambitious AI initiative unveiled in June 2024. Positioned as a personal intelligence system embedded in iPhones, iPads, and Macs, the technology was marketed as a generative-AI-powered enhancement of Siri – Apple’s digital assistant – promising context-aware capabilities, cross-app actions, and improved natural language processing.
A New Chapter in Apple Innovation – or Not
CEO Tim Cook declared the features a “new chapter in Apple innovation,” per Tucker, emphasizing their role in justifying iPhone 16 upgrades. Apple also ran high-profile ad campaigns, including one starring actress Bella Ramsey, illustrating Siri’s supposed ability to integrate personal data and act on-screen in real time.
However, Tucker argues that these features did not exist in any functional form at the time of their announcement. Internal Apple sources, including Siri director Robby Walker, later admitted the company promoted the enhancements “before they were ready.” In fact, Walker called the delay “ugly and embarrassing,” and Apple ultimately removed the ads from its website and YouTube page.
On March 7, 2025, Apple quietly acknowledged that the Siri updates were “taking longer than [we] thought,” pushing their release to an undefined date in the following year. The revelation triggered an immediate drop in stock price – nearly 5 percent – followed by further declines after Morgan Stanley lowered Apple’s price target, and the Wall Street Journal published a critical report labeling Apple’s AI claims as misleading. By April 4, Apple’s stock had dropped by over 15 percent from its March high.
Following an underwhelming 2025 WWDC with no mention of the delayed Siri features, shares slipped again. Analysts widely interpreted Apple’s AI trajectory as trailing that of competitors like Google and Microsoft.
Tucker claims that Apple knowingly misrepresented its AI development timeline, overstated the capabilities of iPhone 16 to generate sales, and failed to disclose material adverse facts to the investing public. Tucker also points to large insider stock sales by CEO Tim Cook and former CFO Luca Maestri – totaling nearly $100 million during the class period – as evidence of Apple’s intent to deceive, a critical aspect of the plaintiff’s fraud claim. And ultimately, he argues that he purchased Apple stock at artificially inflated prices, suffering financial harm when the truth emerged.
With the foregoing in mind, the complaint accuses Apple, Cook, Maestri, and current CFO Kevan Parekh of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, which prohibits the use of any “device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” and imposes liability for any misstatement or omission of a material fact regarding a security, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, which provides that “controlling persons”– can be vicariously liable for such violations.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Tucker’s case highlights a broader reckoning unfolding across the tech industry: the growing tension between corporate AI marketing and investor accountability. As generative AI has become the centerpiece of investor excitement – and company valuations, tech giants like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Apple have scrambled to showcase their relevance in the space. But amid the fervor, the line between aspirational product development and misleading hype may be getting blurred.
Tucker alleges that Apple crossed that line, promoting undeveloped AI features as imminent capabilities to spur sales and inflate its share price. As the court weighs internal communications, product timelines, and executive intent, the case may become an early test of how far public companies can go in marketing future-facing AI tools before triggering liability under federal securities laws.
The case is Tucker v. Apple Inc. et al., 5:25‑cv‑05197 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
