Privacy giant Proton launches federal class-action lawsuit against Apple’s iron-grip control of iPhone apps, aiming to break open what they call an illegal monopoly that costs developers and users billions while enabling censorship in authoritarian regimes.
Key Takeaways
- Proton has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Apple in California, challenging the tech giant’s exclusive control over app distribution and payment processing on iOS devices.
- The lawsuit claims Apple imposes excessive fees up to 30% on developers while blocking alternative app stores and payment methods, resulting in higher prices for consumers.
- Apple’s policies allegedly favor its services over competitors like Proton Mail and Proton VPN through technical restrictions and preferential treatment.
- Proton pledges to donate any monetary damages from the lawsuit to democracy and human rights organizations through its nonprofit foundation.
- The case joins broader legal challenges against Apple’s App Store policies, including actions by the U.S. Justice Department and European regulators.
David vs. Goliath: Privacy Champion Takes on Tech Giant
Swiss privacy technology company Proton has launched a significant legal battle against Apple, filing a class-action antitrust lawsuit in the Northern District of California. The lawsuit directly challenges Apple’s control over iOS app distribution and payment processing, which Proton claims constitutes an illegal monopoly. The 73-page complaint details how Apple maintains exclusive control over app distribution on iPhones and iPads while forcing developers to use its payment system and pay commissions as high as 30% on all transactions.
“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,” Proton CEO Andy Yen.
Proton, known for privacy-focused services like Proton Mail and Proton VPN, argues that Apple’s policies specifically harm companies offering alternatives to Apple’s services. The lawsuit claims Apple employs a systematic strategy to lock in both consumers and developers by designing iOS to only allow app distribution through its App Store. This technical limitation, combined with contractual requirements and regular updates to its policies, effectively blocks competition and maintains Apple’s control over the entire ecosystem.
Apple’s “Tariff” on Internet Commerce
The lawsuit characterizes Apple’s App Store fees as arbitrary tariffs on internet commerce that harm both developers and consumers. Proton points to evidence from the Epic Games v. Apple case suggesting these fees far exceed what would be necessary to maintain the App Store. According to the complaint, Apple’s policies result in developers paying excessive commissions, which in turn leads to higher prices for users and stifles innovation in the marketplace.
“Proton’s 73-page complaint outlines what it calls a systematic strategy by Apple to lock in consumers and developers,” stated Proton.
Particularly concerning for privacy advocates is Proton’s claim that Apple’s policies favor surveillance capitalism and enable censorship in authoritarian markets. The lawsuit notes that Apple willingly complies with government demands to remove apps in certain regions, while simultaneously blocking tools like VPNs that could help users circumvent such restrictions. This double standard allows Apple to maintain market access while potentially compromising user privacy and freedom.
Uneven Playing Field for Developers
One of the most damaging aspects of Apple’s control, according to the lawsuit, is the preferential treatment given to Apple’s apps over third-party alternatives. Proton points out significant discrepancies in how Apple treats competing services, including restrictions on setting default apps and limitations on background processing capabilities. These technical handicaps effectively ensure Apple’s services maintain an advantage over competitors, regardless of quality or features.
“The lawsuit notes that Apple itself permits looser rules on macOS and in limited cases, such as the WeChat mini-programs in China,” stated Proton.
Proton’s lawsuit seeks substantial changes to Apple’s business practices, including court orders that would require Apple to allow competing app stores and payment processors on iOS devices. Additionally, the company is demanding monetary damages for affected developers who have paid what they consider excessive commissions. In a move that underscores its commitment to broader principles beyond profit, Proton has pledged to donate any monetary gains from the lawsuit to organizations supporting democracy and human rights through its nonprofit Proton Foundation.
Part of a Broader Challenge to Big Tech Control
This lawsuit joins a growing chorus of legal challenges against Apple’s App Store policies worldwide. The U.S. Justice Department has filed its antitrust lawsuit against Apple, while European regulators have implemented the Digital Markets Act, specifically targeting such practices by tech giants. The Epic Games lawsuit previously resulted in a judge ruling that Apple must allow developers to direct users to alternative payment methods, though Apple has fought to limit the scope of these changes.
“Apple is facing fresh legal heat from privacy company Proton, which wants to break open the iPhone’s closed App Store,” stated Proton.
For conservative consumers concerned about Big Tech overreach and control, Proton’s lawsuit represents a significant challenge to what many see as unchecked corporate power. The case highlights growing tension between major technology platforms and the developers and users who depend on them, raising fundamental questions about who ultimately controls the digital economy. As President Trump continues to address tech monopolies, this case could potentially influence future regulatory approaches to ensuring fair competition in digital marketplaces.
