Privacy-focused app maker Proton sues Apple over alleged anticompetitive practices and fees

Proton, the company behind privacy-centric applications such as Proton Mail and Proton Drive, has initiated legal proceedings against Apple, accusing the tech giant of engaging in anticompetitive behavior within its App Store. In its lawsuit, Proton contends that Apple exerts a monopoly over the smartphone, app distribution, and payment processing sectors. Proton likens Apple's fees to 'tariffs on internet commerce,' describing them as both 'artificial and arbitrary.' The lawsuit seeks reforms to the App Store policies and financial compensation, which Proton has pledged to donate to organizations advocating for democracy and human rights. Filed in the Northern District of California, this case is part of a broader class-action effort against Apple, joining forces with other developers, including a consortium of Korean developers. This legal challenge is the latest in a series of actions aimed at breaking Apple's dominance in the mobile application market. It follows a protracted legal clash between Epic Games and Apple, where a ruling largely favored Apple, asserting it was not a monopoly. However, that case also mandated that Apple allow U.S. developers to link to their websites for alternative payment options without imposing commission fees, a matter Apple continues to contest on appeal. Proton's lawsuit takes a distinct approach by referencing the Epic case, arguing that the substantial profits Apple earns from App Store fees raise doubts about the necessity of these charges for maintaining the App Store. Additionally, Proton criticizes Apple's restrictions on developer communications with customers, which prevent apps from directly informing users about web discounts. The lawsuit highlights the risks developers face if they do not utilize Apple's payment system, potentially leading to the removal of their apps from the App Store. The complaint also delves into the complications concerning payment management across different devices due to Apple's regulations. For example, Proton notes that users upgrading their accounts on the web are unable to downgrade using their iOS devices, resulting in a frustrating customer experience. Furthermore, Proton argues that its Calendar app cannot be designated as the default, despite iOS permitting default changes for other types of applications. Significantly, Proton's case emphasizes the implications of Apple's monopoly on software distribution, which it claims can be weaponized by authoritarian regimes to suppress free speech. Proton cites instances where Apple has had to remove apps to comply with regulations in countries like Russia and China, which negatively affects developers on iOS. The company warns that such monopoly power can lead to widespread abuses, stating, 'Anti-monopoly laws exist because the power gifted by monopoly status inevitably leads to abuse.' Proton insists that addressing these issues is crucial for the future of the internet. Apple has yet to respond to requests for comment regarding this lawsuit.