The law always lags behind technology
Across the world's wealthiest democracies, Apple has paid hundreds of millions of dollars for quietly degrading the devices of its own customers — an admission, however reluctant, that technology companies are not above the laws that protect ordinary people. In Brazil, that reckoning has not arrived. The same practice, the same harm, the same company — but a legal architecture built in 1990 that never imagined software could be the instrument of obsolescence. What unfolds in Brazilian courts is less a story about Apple than about the distance between the laws a society writes and the world those laws must eventually govern.
- Apple's admission that it deliberately slowed older iPhones — settled with fines in the US, France, and Chile — has produced zero financial accountability in Brazil, where the company has won every legal challenge.
- A nearly $987 million lawsuit filed in 2018 by a Brazilian digital rights institute has stalled in judicial secrecy, leaving millions of consumers with no compensation and no precedent to stand on.
- Brazil's 1990 Consumer Protection Code, precise about hardware but silent on software, hands Apple a legal gap wide enough to sell an iPhone 8 until 2020 and then quietly reduce its capabilities without consequence.
- A fragmented patchwork of state-level Procon agencies — with no unified enforcement voice — means that any regulator attempting to confront a company of Apple's scale is already outgunned before the case begins.
- Small regulatory wins, like forcing Apple to include chargers, hint that the system can move — but without consolidated case law, every new fight starts from zero, and Brazilian consumers with aging iPhones are still waiting.
Every iOS update brings the same quiet verdict for owners of older iPhones: their devices will survive, but diminished — cut off from security patches, abandoned by apps, fading toward irrelevance. When iOS 17 arrives, the iPhone 8 and X, released in 2017, will join that category. Apple calls it technical necessity. Critics call it planned obsolescence — the deliberate erosion of old products to accelerate demand for new ones.
In the United States, France, and Chile, that strategy carried a price. Apple settled the so-called Batterygate scandal — its admission that it throttled older iPhones through software updates — for $113 million, $27 million, and $3.4 million respectively. These were not technicalities. They were financial confessions.
Brazil tells a different story. Apple has won every case brought against it there. A 2018 lawsuit seeking nearly $987 million in damages, filed by the Brazilian Institute for Computing Policy and Law, failed in two lower courts and now sits in limbo at the higher courts, shielded by judicial secrecy. No fines. No settlements.
The explanation lies in the law — or its absence. Brazil's Consumer Protection Code, written in 1990, addresses hardware obsolescence with some care but says almost nothing about software. It requires manufacturers to supply replacement parts for a "reasonable period" after production ends, but never defines reasonable. For smartphones, no standard has emerged. Apple sold the iPhone 8 in Brazil until 2020 and has exploited that silence ever since.
Researcher Luã Cruz frames the human cost plainly: consumers who bought that model just a few years ago are watching their device's functionality shrink prematurely, with no legal path to redress. Digital rights lawyer Felipe Carteiro adds that the Consumer Protection Code requires manufacturers to sell safe products — yet when Apple withholds security updates from older phones, the law offers no clear remedy for the contradiction it creates.
The deeper problem is structural. The US has consolidated regulatory agencies with genuine enforcement power. Brazil's consumer protection system is dispersed across dozens of state-level Procon offices with no unified authority. The São Paulo Procon, when asked about iOS obsolescence complaints, reported having none on file. Carteiro is cautiously hopeful that higher courts may eventually rule differently as legal thinking catches up with technology. For now, Brazilian consumers with aging iPhones are left to wait.
Every time Apple releases a new iOS update, owners of older iPhones face the same reckoning: their phones will no longer run the latest operating system. When iOS 17 arrives, the iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and X—models released in 2017—will be left behind. The devices won't stop working entirely, but they'll lose access to security patches and, gradually, support from third-party apps. It's a slow fade into obsolescence, and Apple has perfected the art of it.
The company calls this a technical necessity. Older hardware, the argument goes, simply cannot handle the demands of newer software. But there's another name for what Apple does: planned obsolescence—deliberately degrading old products to push consumers toward new ones. In the United States, France, and Chile, this strategy has cost Apple dearly. The company settled a lawsuit over "Batterygate"—the revelation that it deliberately slowed older iPhones during iOS updates—for $113 million in the US, $27 million in France, and $3.4 million in Chile. These were not small gestures. They were admissions wrapped in financial penalties.
Brazil tells a different story. Apple has won every legal battle there. In 2018, the Brazilian Institute for Computing Policy and Law filed suit seeking nearly $987 million in damages and demanding that Apple compensate consumers harmed by the battery-throttling practice. The case lost in two lower courts and remains in limbo at Brazil's higher courts, shrouded in judicial secrecy. No fines. No settlements. No accountability.
The gap between what happens in São Paulo and what happens in San Francisco comes down to law—or rather, the absence of it. Brazil's Consumer Protection Code, written in 1990, addresses hardware obsolescence with some precision but says almost nothing about software. The law requires manufacturers to provide replacement parts "for a reasonable period of time" after production ends, but it never defines what "reasonable" means. In the automotive industry, the market settled on five years. For smartphones, no such standard exists. And Apple, which sold the iPhone 8 in Brazil until 2020, has exploited that silence.
Luã Cruz, a telecommunications researcher at Brazil's Consumer Defense Institute, sees the problem clearly. "You have consumers who may have bought that model three years ago and are clearly being harmed, because the product's functionality will be reduced prematurely and unfairly," he said. The law exists to prevent exactly this. But the law is vague, and vagueness favors the company with the best lawyers.
Apple's defense rests on two pillars: security and performance. The company argues that older phones lack the physical components needed to safely run new software, and that forcing incompatible systems onto old hardware would degrade the user experience. These arguments have legal weight. A phone from 2017 is not a phone from 2023, and the gap matters. But Felipe Carteiro, a digital rights lawyer, notes that the Consumer Protection Code explicitly requires manufacturers to sell safe products. When Apple chooses not to update older phones for security reasons, it creates a tension the law was never written to resolve.
Why does the US enforce what Brazil does not? Carteiro points to regulatory maturity. The US has consolidated enforcement agencies with real power. Brazil's consumer protection system is fragmented—dozens of state-level Procon offices, a federal consumer secretariat, no unified voice. "You end up with a decentralized system that was meant to serve the population better, but it actually weakens any single regulator trying to take on a company the size of Apple," he explained. The Procon office in São Paulo, when asked about complaints regarding iOS obsolescence, reported having none on file.
There are small signs of change. Brazilian regulators recently forced Apple to stop selling iPhones without chargers, a victory that suggests the system can move. But these are administrative decisions, not judicial ones, and Apple can challenge them in court. Without consolidated jurisprudence—a body of settled case law—each new battle starts from scratch. Carteiro remains cautiously optimistic. "The law always lags behind technology," he said. "But when this reaches the higher courts, the outcome could be different." For now, Brazilian consumers with aging iPhones wait.
Citações Notáveis
You have consumers who may have bought that model three years ago and are clearly being harmed, because the product's functionality will be reduced prematurely and unfairly.— Luã Cruz, telecommunications researcher at Brazil's Consumer Defense Institute
The law always lags behind technology. But when this reaches the higher courts, the outcome could be different.— Felipe Carteiro, digital rights lawyer
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Apple get away with this in Brazil when it's been penalized everywhere else?
The law there doesn't have a clear definition of software obsolescence. The Consumer Protection Code was written in 1990, before smartphones existed. It talks about hardware parts, not operating systems.
So it's just a gap in the law?
Partly. But it's also how the system is organized. Brazil has dozens of different consumer protection agencies at the state level, no single powerful regulator. Apple can outlast any one of them.
Does Apple actually slow down the phones, or is it just that new software won't run on old hardware?
Both. Apple admitted to deliberately slowing older iPhones to preserve battery life during updates. That's what Batterygate was about. But there's also the technical reality—a 2017 phone can't run 2024 software the same way a new one can.
And that's their defense?
Yes. They say it's about security and user experience. The argument isn't unreasonable from an engineering standpoint. But the law says you have to keep products safe. If you won't update them, you're creating an unsafe product.
Could this change?
Maybe. There are signs. Brazil recently forced Apple to include chargers with phones. But those were administrative decisions, not court rulings. Until a higher court settles the question, each case starts over.