Privacy firm Proton’s class-action lawsuit against Apple alleges the tech giant’s App Store policies constitute an illegal monopoly that harms both developers and consumers while enabling global censorship.
Key Takeaways
- Proton has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Apple in California, challenging its App Store monopoly and fees of up to 30% imposed on developers.
- The lawsuit accuses Apple of maintaining illegal control over app distribution and payment processing on iOS devices, restricting competition and innovation.
- Proton claims Apple’s policies create a walled garden that enables censorship and surveillance while giving preferential treatment to Apple’s services.
- The privacy company seeks court orders to allow competing app stores and payment processors on iOS, pledging to donate any monetary damages to democracy and human rights groups.
David vs. Goliath: Privacy Champion Challenges Apple’s Iron Grip
Proton, the Swiss privacy technology company known for secure email and VPN services, has launched a significant legal challenge against one of the world’s most powerful corporations. The 73-page federal antitrust lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California accuses Apple of maintaining an unlawful monopoly over app distribution and payment processing on iOS devices. This legal action adds to mounting global pressure on Apple’s business practices from regulators and developers alike, highlighting growing concerns about the company’s dominance in the mobile ecosystem.
At the heart of Proton’s complaint is Apple’s requirement that developers exclusively use its App Store for distribution on iOS devices and its mandatory payment processing system that extracts commissions of up to 30%. The lawsuit describes how Apple employs technical limitations, contractual restrictions, and system updates to block competing app stores and maintain complete control over in-app payments. This closed system, Proton argues, creates an environment where developers face excessive fees that ultimately lead to higher prices and fewer innovations for consumers.
Monopolistic Practices and Discriminatory Treatment
The lawsuit highlights troubling inconsistencies in how Apple treats its services versus third-party applications. Proton points out that Apple’s apps enjoy privileges denied to competitors, including background processing capabilities and the ability to be set as default applications. These advantages artificially boost Apple’s services while handicapping rivals. The complaint also references evidence from the Epic Games v. Apple case that questioned whether Apple’s substantial App Store fees are truly necessary for platform security and maintenance, as the company claims.
“Apple’s monopoly control of software distribution on iOS devices presents a myriad of problems for consumers, businesses, and society as a whole. Anti-monopoly laws exist because the power gifted by monopoly status inevitably leads to abuse. In the case of oligarchic tech giants, these abuses have wide implications for society, and it’s vital to the future of the internet that they be addressed now,” stated Proton CEO Andy Yen.
The lawsuit further alleges that Apple’s restrictions go beyond simple business practices to enable troubling forms of control. Proton argues that Apple’s App Store policies favor surveillance capitalism by making it difficult for privacy-focused alternatives to compete effectively. More concerning, the company claims Apple’s monopoly enables censorship in authoritarian markets, with the tech giant having the power to remove apps based on government directives – a power that would be diluted if multiple app stores were allowed to operate.
Seeking Meaningful Reform and Committing to Democracy
Unlike many lawsuits that focus primarily on financial compensation, Proton’s legal action emphasizes structural changes to Apple’s ecosystem. The company is seeking an injunction that would force Apple to open iOS to competing app stores and payment processors, fundamentally changing how the platform operates. While the lawsuit does demand compensation for excessive commissions and competitive harm, Proton has made the notable commitment to donate any monetary gains from the case to democracy and human rights organizations through its nonprofit Proton Foundation.
“Proton’s 73-page complaint outlines what it calls a systematic strategy by Apple to lock in consumers and developers,” stated Proton.
This case joins broader legal challenges to Apple’s App Store policies, including the ongoing U.S. Justice Department antitrust lawsuit and regulatory actions in Europe. The lawsuit specifically compares Apple’s App Store fees to arbitrary tariffs on internet commerce and criticizes policies that bar developers from even informing customers about web discounts. These restrictions, Proton argues, artificially inflate prices and limit consumer choice in ways that harm the entire digital marketplace. Whether this latest challenge will succeed where others have had limited impact remains to be seen, but it represents another significant front in the battle against Big Tech’s growing power.
