Mass Tort brief
Israeli Mass Tort Round-Up: Battery Claims, Court Access, and Insurer Liabilities
Apple opens a ₪10 million claims portal, the Supreme Court rejects Google's file secrecy appeal, and Harel Insurance faces tax clawback litigation.
Mass Tort
Israeli iPhone owners can now collect up to ₪1,890 per device under Apple's ₪10M settlement — concluding nine years of battery throttling litigation.
BackgroundIsraeli consumers filed consolidated class action lawsuits against Apple in 2017 after software updates slowed processing speeds on older iPhone models. Apple denied liability and settled the claims without admission of wrongdoing.
- Eligible Israeli owners of older iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 models can submit claims for payouts capped at ₪1,890 per device, depending on user documentation.
- The claim filing period remains open through December 16, 2026, via an official court-monitored website, establishing a strict deadline for nationwide payouts.
- The settlement concludes nine years of class action litigation over software power management features in Israel, setting a precedent for consumer tech disclosures.
Mass Tort
District court certification of the class action against Harel sets firm limits on insurers pursuing retroactive tax clawbacks from policyholders.
BackgroundThe lawsuit involves Israel Electric Corporation workers who received insurance benefit payments in 2010 without tax withheld at source. Harel sent repayment demands to policyholders more than seven years after the original distributions.
- The court restricted the class definition exclusively to policyholders who received demands delayed past seven years, limiting Harel's exposure.
- Harel Insurance stated it is evaluating an appeal and expects no material financial impact on its reserves under current risk assessments.
- The ruling limits insurance carriers' ability to retroactively claw back unpaid taxes from group policyholders, establishing a strict operational deadline for benefit audits.
Mass Tort
The Supreme Court upheld open access to historical court records — preventing tech giants from shielding past class action files from public scrutiny.
BackgroundGoogle fought to prevent an attorney from reviewing sealed class action files, arguing the inspection was an improper attempt to find grounds for new litigation. Israeli court rules establish public access to judicial proceedings as a default right.
- The Supreme Court confirmed that attorneys may review historical class action filings absent specific protective court orders, cementing public inspection rights.
- Justice Grosskopf rejected Google's argument that broad file inspection improperly encourages serial litigation, prioritizing judicial transparency over corporate secrecy.
- The decision strengthens plaintiff attorneys' ability to examine past corporate settlements, laying groundwork for future class action claims against tech giants.
Unlock the full brief
Sign in to read every signal, takeaway, and source. Free account — Apple, Google, or email.
