Proton Sues Apple: Privacy App Maker Challenges App Store Fees

Proton Sues Apple Over App Store Practices

Proton, the privacy-focused software company behind Proton Mail, Proton Calendar, and Proton Drive, has initiated legal action against Apple. The lawsuit alleges that Apple engages in anticompetitive behaviors within its App Store ecosystem.

Proton asserts that Apple maintains a monopolistic position across several key markets: smartphones, application distribution, and application payment processing. The company characterizes Apple’s fees as arbitrary levies on digital commerce.

Seeking Changes and Supporting Human Rights

The legal proceedings aim to instigate modifications to the App Store’s operational structure and secure financial compensation. Proton intends to donate any awarded damages to organizations dedicated to the advancement of democracy and the protection of human rights.

This case is being presented as part of a broader class-action lawsuit against Apple, with Proton joining other developers, including a collective of developers from Korea, in challenging the tech giant’s practices.

A Growing Challenge to Apple’s App Market Control

This lawsuit represents the latest in a series of legal challenges questioning Apple’s dominance over the mobile application marketplace.

It follows a protracted legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, a case Apple largely won, establishing a legal precedent. However, the presiding judge in the Epic Games case also mandated that Apple permit U.S. app developers to provide links to their websites for alternative payment options, without incurring commission charges. (Apple is currently appealing this ruling.)

Questioning the Necessity of App Store Fees

Proton’s legal strategy differs by focusing on the profitability of Apple’s App Store fees. The company references the Epic Games case, highlighting evidence that suggests the substantial revenue generated from these fees raises questions about their necessity for App Store maintenance, as Apple claims.

Proton also objects to Apple’s payment policies, noting restrictions on direct communication between developers and their customers within the app itself, preventing the dissemination of information regarding web-based discounts.

Furthermore, applications that do not integrate Apple’s payment system face potential removal from the App Store, according to the lawsuit.

Impact on User Experience and Functionality

The arguments surrounding payments extend to complexities in managing subscriptions and payments across different devices due to Apple’s regulations. Proton illustrates this with an example: users upgrading their accounts on the web are unable to downgrade through their iOS devices, resulting in a suboptimal user experience.

Proton further contends that its Calendar application cannot be designated as the default, despite iOS allowing users to customize default applications for browsers, email, phone calls, and messaging.

Additionally, Proton Drive is hindered by restrictions on background processing, a privilege granted to iCloud.

App Store as a Tool for Censorship

A significant aspect of Proton’s case centers on the App Store’s role as a tool for censorship, particularly in authoritarian regimes. The company points to Apple’s compliance with laws in countries like Russia and China, which necessitates the removal of certain applications.

This compliance impacts iOS developers, as demonstrated by the threat of removal faced by Proton’s VPN application due to its claim of “unblocking censored websites.”

The Broader Implications of Apple’s Monopoly

“Apple’s monopoly control of software distribution on iOS devices presents a myriad of problems for consumers, businesses, and society as a whole,” Proton stated in a public post. “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.”

Apple was contacted for a statement but had not responded at the time of publication.