You’ve probably seen the headlines or maybe a random check showed up in your mail. If you own an older Apple Watch, the case of Smith et al v Apple Inc is something you should definitely know about. It’s not just some dry legal filing; it’s about screens popping off, batteries expanding like tiny pillows, and a long-running battle over whether Apple knew their sleek design was a bit of a safety hazard.
The core of the issue? Space. Or rather, a lack of it.
The plaintiffs, led by Chris Smith, basically argued that Apple was so obsessed with making the Apple Watch thin and compact that they didn't leave any room for the lithium-ion battery to do what batteries naturally do: swell. When a battery swells inside a frame with zero wiggle room, that energy has to go somewhere. Usually, it goes straight up, pushing the screen out from the inside.
The "Razor-Sharp" Reality of the Apple Watch Defect
This wasn't just a cosmetic "my screen is crooked" problem. The lawsuit alleged that when these screens detached or cracked due to battery pressure, they exposed edges that were literally razor-sharp. We are talking about Ion-X glass and sapphire crystal.
🔗 Read more: Smart TV TCL 55: What Most People Get Wrong
Why the Lawsuit Claimed a Safety Hazard
- Physical Injury: Several users reported actual cuts and lacerations when their screens failed.
- Sudden Failure: The detachment could happen without warning, often while the watch was still on a person's wrist.
- The "Compact" Trap: The lawsuit (Case No. 4:21-cv-09527 in the Northern District of California) specifically called out Apple's 2015 patent. This patent showed that Apple knew batteries could swell, yet they allegedly moved forward with a design that provided no internal "buffer" zone.
Kinda scary, right? For years, Apple's official stance was that these incidents were "very rare." They even offered a replacement program for Series 2 and Series 3 models, but the plaintiffs argued that wasn't enough because the defect existed across the entire lineup, from the very first "Series 0" to the newer Series 6.
The $20 Million Settlement Drama
Fast forward to late 2024 and early 2025. A settlement was reached—sorta. Apple agreed to put up $20 million to resolve the claims. But here is where it gets messy. In a move that surprised a lot of people, the judge actually rejected the initial settlement proposal because there wasn't enough info on how that $20 million was actually calculated or how it compared to what people might get if they sued individually.
Eventually, things got back on track. If you were a member of the class—meaning you owned a First Gen, Series 1, 2, or 3 watch and reported a battery-related screen issue—you were eligible for a slice of the pie.
💡 You might also like: Savannah Weather Radar: What Most People Get Wrong
The Payout Numbers
Honesty time: you weren't going to get rich. Most people were looking at payments between $20 and $50. By August 2025, many users started seeing these payments arrive via virtual Mastercards or direct deposits. It’s a classic class action result—the lawyers get a big chunk, and the users get enough for a nice lunch and maybe a new watch band.
What Most People Get Wrong About This Case
A lot of people confuse Smith et al v Apple Inc with other Apple lawsuits. Honestly, it’s easy to do since Apple is basically a magnet for litigation.
There was a separate "Smith v Apple" case in New York (1:21-cv-03657) that was all about iPhone water resistance. In that one, Antoinette Smith argued that Apple’s "water-resistant" marketing was a total sham because as soon as an iPhone actually touched water and broke, Apple would point to the fine print in the warranty that excludes liquid damage.
📖 Related: Project Liberty Explained: Why Frank McCourt Wants to Buy TikTok and Fix the Internet
Then there's the iCloud "third-party server" lawsuit (Williams v Apple) that people often mix up with the Smith battery case. That one was about Apple using Amazon and Google servers to store your "Apple" data.
Smith et al v Apple Inc (the California one) is strictly about the Apple Watch hardware and those swelling batteries.
Why This Matters for You in 2026
If you're still rocking an older Apple Watch, or even a newer one, this case changed how Apple handles battery health. You've probably noticed that watchOS now has "Optimized Battery Charging." That’s not just a coincidence. By limiting how long a battery sits at 100% charge, Apple is actively trying to prevent the chemical aging that leads to the swelling seen in the Smith case.
Actionable Insights for Watch Owners
- Check for "The Gap": If you see even a tiny sliver of light between your Apple Watch screen and the metal frame, stop wearing it. That is the first sign of a swelling battery.
- Monitor Your Battery Health: Go to Settings > Battery > Battery Health on your watch. If it's below 80%, you're in the "danger zone" for potential swelling.
- Don't DIY a Swollen Battery: Seriously. If that screen is popping off, do not try to glue it back down. You’re essentially compressing a tiny chemical bomb.
- Claim Your History: If you had an old watch that broke this way and you never reported it, it might be too late for the Smith settlement, but it's always worth a chat with Apple Support to see if they’ll offer an "out of warranty" replacement for a known safety issue.
The legal battle of Smith et al v Apple Inc reminds us that even the "magic" of tech is bound by the laws of physics. Batteries need room to breathe. When they don't get it, the lawyers eventually show up to make sure someone pays for the Band-Aids.
To stay ahead of future issues, you can check your device's specific coverage status on Apple's official support page by entering your serial number. If you were part of the settlement, keep an eye on your associated email for any remaining payment disbursements or updates from the claims administrator.