Overview
Cohen Milstein is representing Proton AG, a global leader in privacy‑focused software, in a putative antitrust class action against Apple Inc. for allegedly monopolizing the iOS app distribution and iOS app payment‑processing markets. Proton claims that Apple, one of the world’s most valuable companies, has eliminated competition and extracted supracompetitive profits from app developers through a web of exclusionary conduct.
Proton alleges that Apple has built and maintained an unlawful monopoly by blocking competition and extracting inflated profits from developers through exclusionary tactics. These practices, Proton argues, have created a tightly controlled ecosystem where innovation is suppressed, privacy-focused alternatives are shut out, and both developers and consumers pay the price.
The lawsuit claims that Apple’s supracompetitive commission structure forces developers to choose between shrinking their margins or passing the cost on to consumers. It also alleges that Apple prevents the emergence of better, more affordable, and more secure distribution channels—damaging innovation and limiting consumer choice.
Global regulators have echoed these concerns. Through this lawsuit, Proton, on behalf of developers worldwide, seeks to restore competition to the iOS app ecosystem—pursuing injunctive relief and monetary damages for developers harmed by Apple’s alleged anticompetitive conduct.
Case Background
Apple is one of the world’s most valuable companies. It controls the iOS operating system powering hundreds of millions of iPhones, iPads, and other devices in the United States and worldwide.
Proton claims that rather than compete on the merits, Apple has leveraged its power in the smartphone market to create and maintain illegal monopolies in two critical aftermarkets: (1) the distribution of iOS applications, and (2) the processing of payments for iOS applications and in-app purchases.
In the iOS app distribution market, Apple maintains a complete monopoly through its App Store, which it has designed as the sole gateway for iOS users to obtain applications. Apple has systematically excluded competing app stores through a combination of technological restrictions and contractual prohibitions. When alternative iOS app distribution platforms have emerged, Apple has used its control over iOS to render them inoperable, ensuring that developers like Proton have no choice but to distribute their iOS apps exclusively through Apple’s App Store.
In the iOS app payment processing market, Apple similarly maintains a monopoly through its In-App Purchase (“IAP”) system. Apple contractually requires developers to use only Apple’s payment processing services for any transactions within their apps, prohibiting developers from offering alternative payment methods or directing users to external payment options. This forced exclusivity allows Apple to extract a 30% commission on most transactions.
Apple’s anticompetitive conduct extends beyond mere exclusion of competitors. Proton claims that the company has actively suppressed innovation that threatens its monopoly power, including “super apps” that could reduce user dependence on iOS, and cloud gaming services that could eliminate the need for expensive Apple hardware.
Regulators worldwide have recognized that Apple’s conduct is anticompetitive. The U.S. Department of Justice and fifteen state attorneys general have sued Apple for antitrust violations, comparing the company to “oil barons and railroad tycoons.” The European Commission has fined Apple €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position. Competition authorities in South Korea, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and India have all taken enforcement actions against Apple’s anticompetitive practices.
Proton claims that despite this regulatory scrutiny, Apple remains an illegal monopolist and continues to extract supracompetitive profits from developers.
The relief sought in this case would benefit not only app developers, but also the millions of iOS users who have been denied the benefits of competition—including lower prices, better services, and greater innovation—due to Apple’s anticompetitive conduct.