Apple’s App Store policies once again moved to the agenda of the judiciary. Proton, a Swiss -based software company, filed a lawsuit against Apple within the scope of antitröst laws in the USA. With this case, Proton argues that the fees in the App Store are arbitrary and artificial. The fundamental complaint of the company is that the high commissions taken through the App Store are unfair.
Proton was included in the collective case, which was mainly opened on May 23rd and including South Korean developers. However, he was not satisfied with this and presented his individual application to the court. The accusations of the company to Apple are not limited to wages. The policies imposed on developers in the application store are also part of the case file.
Proton finds Apple’s control in the distribution of application
Proton argued that the App Store has made a disadvantageous of privacy -oriented companies in the documents submitted to the court. According to the company’s statement, large companies that earn income through collecting personal data do not pay commission to Apple, while direct services are exposed to high fees. It is clearly emphasized that this situation disrupts the fair competitive environment. In addition, it is stated that attempts that attach importance to user privacy threaten the sustainability.
In addition, Proton states that Apple’s monopolized position on the App Store also damages the developer and user relationship. Apple’s easily submitting to governments’ applications to remove implementation is among the points criticized by the company. It is suggested that such policies limit the freedom of expression and the universality of digital services. This audit on the distribution of applications leads to technology companies to become open to government pressure.
According to Proton, Apple’s restrictions on in -app orientations are also a serious problem. The company complains about not being able to direct its users to FAQ or help pages. It is clearly demonstrated that this situation directly affects the application experience. The fact that developers cannot communicate with the user reduces the quality of service.
In addition to all these, Proton says he could not reduce prices in favor of the user because of the App Store commissions. Daming between 15 and 30 percent of developers’ revenues makes alternative pricing options almost impossible. This means that users pay more fees. The company argues that this has a harmful result for both commercial and consumer.
In the documents submitted to the court, Proton does not only demand financial compensation. The main demand of the company is the structural change of the App Store. Alternative application stores are asked to open the way and use different payment systems. The ability of developers to offer their applications from their own sites is among the demands.
Proton says that the App Store was a small market place in the first days when it was founded, but today it has become the center of the internet. Mobile applications are now the main channel in accessing information to millions of people. The company argues that this environment should have a more free and competitive structure. The view that the current situation damages the development of digital democracy stands out.
The company plans to donate any financial compensation to be earned from the case. It is emphasized that their aim is not only to generate income, but to create a more fair digital ecosystem. Proton demands that the decision from the court to lead to essential reforms, not superficial changes. He says that the legal struggle in this direction is important not only for themselves, but for all developers and users.
The Apple Front did not comment on the case for the time being. In previous similar cases, Apple argued that he had followed such policies in order to ensure user security and maintain store quality. However, an increasing number of developers think that these statements are not enough to legitimize repressive methods in practice. For this reason, Apple’s App Store policies may be more frequently encountered in the coming period.