Student 1) I believe that the lawsuit was ethical because Apple paid out and basically admitted that yes people's phones performance did go down with a new software update and now apple can't do that again without being caught or sued. A lot of people own iPhone's and apple can't pay everybody a new iPhone because that would cost them a fortune. Especially since Apple was doing this to older model iPhone and not the newer ones. I believe Apple was doing this so that they could stop supporting the older model iPhone's and make people buy the new ones which that was unethical to do. But the settlement I believe was ethical because they are basically admitting that they got caught and now they won't do it again. (Reuters) "Apple Inc has agreed to pay up $500 million to settle litigation accusing it of quietly slowing down older iPhones as it launched new models, to induce owners to buy replacement phones or batteries". This is basically saying that apple got caught trying to be sneaky so that they could make more money and now they are settling because they have been caught. Now Apple still has to pay to support the iPhones that are older and will still support them over time. Could the settlement have been more money? Absolutely but that would have drained Apple's pockets big time and they probably would have fought it if they would have had to pay more than what they did. So, to me the settlement was ethical. Stempel, J. (2020, March 02). Apple to pay up to $500 million to SETTLE U.S. lawsuit over SLOW iPhones. Retrieved February 08, 2021, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-iphones-settlement/apple-to-pay-up-to-500-million-to-settle-u-s-lawsuit-over-slow-iphones-idUSKBN20P2E7 Student 2) I believe that Apple's class action lawsuit settlement was unethical. Class action lawsuits are common occurrences when it comes to big companies like Apple. For example, in 2013 Subway went to court when people claimed that their 12 inch sandwich bread was in fact only 11 inches. They settled and paid $520,000 in attorney’s fees and they agreed to make sure the bread would be 12 inches from then on. Considering this, they only covered the attorney's fees and there was no way to know that they wont still serve bread under 12 inches. Same applies for Apple. Apple settled for 500 million dollars and paid 30 percent in attorney's fees (which benefits their own attorneys) and they are not technically being held accountable for their wrongdoing. In addition, Apple only ended up paying $113 million in settlement which is not even 1/3 of what they agreed to pay. Consumers can pay up to $1,600 on an iPhone and expect quality products. It cost $69 dollars to replace the battery on an iPhone. Apple only paid $25 per claim which means people would still have to pay $44 out of pocket if they wanted to resolve their battery life issue. According to section 5 powerpoint, rule 23e states that "any settlement of a class action must be approved by the court and must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”" Does it seem fair that a company worth $2 trillion would pay their consumers $25 for a battery worth $69 and not be held accountable for purposefully lowering the quality of their products to make more money? Apple only settled because they knew they would lose and 500 million dollars is nothing compared to how much money they made by weakening the battery life of iPhones. Resources: Davidowitz, K. (2021, February 9). Ethics and the Judicial System : Section 5. Powerpoint Lecture. Klebnikov, S. (2020, August 19). Apple becomes First U.S. company worth more than $2 trillion. Retrieved February 09, 2021, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/08/19/apple-becomes-first-us-company-worth-more-than-2-trillion/?sh=30aa699966e6