2. You are asked to substantiate above claim.

3. You could not (your verge link says no such thing), so you simply chose not to address the misinformation or disinformation that you posted.

A simple "I was incorrect about my recollection of this event" would have sufficed.

1. "Apple paid millions after iPhone repair techs posted a customer’s nude photos to Facebook"

2. "The incident became public because Pegatron reimbursed Apple for the settlement, then sued its own insurance provider for refusing to cover the payment."

3. " The Telegraph reported the 2016 payment based on court documents recently tied to Apple’s name"

4. Apple confirmed the incident in a statement to The Verge.

Doesn't this imply

Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions to their own tech who posted a customer's nude on Facebook.

Ok, by 4 it is confirmed that the source (Telegraph) you have mentioned is correct right? Yes I am holding a premise that the verge is legit source. By 1 they paid millions and their tech posted a customer's nude photo on facebook. I said they hided the statement because of 2.

Where did I go wrong. I love to be corrected tho.

You continue to keep claiming Apple paid millions to the technicians who uploaded someone's nude photos to Facebook.

Both the Telegraph and Verge articles state Apple paid millions to the woman whose photos were uploaded to Facebook.

Apple, probably in 2016, tried to hide their malice when they paid millions when their own tech posted a customer's nude on Facebook

And due to two 'when' I corrected second 'when' to 'to'. And I probably messed it up after that :).

The statement you mentioned on last line is what I wanted to say.