Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Suit against Apple Inc.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/appleinc/) today announced that a class action has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) common stock during the period between November 2, 2018 and January 2, 2019 (the “Class Period”). This action was filed in the Northern District of California and is captioned City of Roseville Employees’ Retirement System v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-2033.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Apple common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at [e-mail]. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/appleinc/.

The complaint charges Apple and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. The Company’s most well-known products include its iconic iPhone smartphones, the iPad tablet computer, and the Mac personal computer. The iPhone, which is one of the Company’s flagship products, generated approximately two-thirds of Apple’s revenue in 2018.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Apple’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (a) the U.S.-China trade war had negatively impacted demand for iPhones and Apple’s pricing power in greater China; (b) due to Apple discounting the cost of replacement batteries to make up for the Company’s prior conduct of intentionally degrading the performance of the batteries in older iPhones, the rate at which Apple customers were replacing their batteries in older iPhones, rather than purchasing new iPhones, was negatively impacting Apple’s iPhone sales growth; (c) as a result of slowing demand, Apple had slashed production orders from suppliers for the new 2018 iPhone models and cut prices to reduce inventory; and (d) defendants’ decision to withhold unit sales for iPhones and other hardware, which was a metric relevant to investors and their view of the Company’s financial performance, was designed to and would mask declines in unit sales of the Company’s flagship product. As a result of this information being withheld from the market during the Class Period, the price of Apple stock was artificially inflated to more than $209 per share.