• insights-banner

    In the Press

Forbes quotes Gareth Mills on the US government’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple

The US is suing Apple for allegedly using its power in the smartphone sector to quash competition from rivals and limit consumer choice.

The complaint accuses the company of abusing its market power in a variety of ways:

  • to 'squash' the growth of innovative apps and messaging services,
  • reduce the appeal of rival smartwatches,
  • keep rival tap-and-pay apps from its devices and
  • block the development of game streaming apps. 

Gareth Mills, Partner, says:

One of the interesting, not to mention incendiary, issues raised by the DOJ’s case is how Apple has allegedly used its encryption and privacy/ security of its messaging services in a disingenuous manner, focusing on its own commercial self interest rather than user safety and privacy. Damningly, the DOJ’s complaint states quite clearly that Apple is happy to use privacy and security of its users as a foundational principle when it suits its economic interests (such as promoting end to end encryption on its iMessage service) but abandons these principles completely when they might benefit a competitor or when not in line with its own commercial interests (i.e. by not making end to end encryption on iMessage compatible with Android technology – something which it could easily do).

"The DOJ argues that in so doing Apple has deliberately stifled innovation and made security and privacy of its users less secure when it contravenes Apple’s own economic interests. As one might expect, Apple has already pushed back against this element of the DOJ’s case, but should that finding be upheld then it could have serious ramifications for encrypted messaging services and their usage worldwide.

Read the full piece in Forbes here.

Related coverage:

Marketwatch

Our thinking

  • An introduction to the new Procurement Act 2023

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • Mind the Gap Trade Mark

    Charlotte Duly

    Insights

  • A Closer Look at the Meaning of ‘Investor’ in Investment Treaty Arbitration

    Stephen Chan

    Insights

  • Rivals: Filming Locations and Considerations for Landed Estates

    Naomi Nettleton

    Insights

  • Shareholder Strategies: A practical guide to unfair prejudice petitions

    Emilie Brammer

    Insights

  • Beyond Dry January: The Rise of the Low and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Sector

    Iwan Thomas

    Insights

  • New food and drink ads regulation & impact on live sports broadcasts

    Sarah Johnson

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys hosts Hard Conversations and Smart Conflict®, a Women in Leadership event

    Sarah Wigington

    News

  • AML in decentralized finance and traditional finance

    Caroline Greenwell

    Insights

  • The Financial Times quotes Sangna Chauhan on the impact of the abolition of UK non-dom status on her workload

    Sangna Chauhan

    In the Press

  • Up in the AI: Gen AI & looking forwards, and backwards

    Joe Cohen

    Podcasts

  • International Arbitration: 2024 in Review

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys advises Puma Growth Partners on its lead investment as part of a $4.3 million funding round for finance-focused legal AI specialist, Semeris

    David Coates

    News

  • Building Safety: What’s in store for 2025?

    Michael O'Connor

    Insights

  • Has the UAE recognised the principle of Without Prejudice Privilege?

    Maher Al Nashar

    Quick Reads

  • The Law Society Gazette quotes Claire Fallows on planning law reform

    Claire Fallows

    In the Press

  • Budget 2024 and its impact on IHT and estates

    Harriet Betteridge

    Podcasts

  • The AI Opportunities Action Plan – the push for data centres

    Sadie Pitman

    Quick Reads

  • Corporate deal round-up H2 2024

    David Coates

    Insights

  • Joe Cohen features in The Lawyer’s ‘Hot 100’ list for 2024-25

    Joe Cohen

    News

Back to top