Privacy company Proton joins antitrust challenge against Apple's App Store policies
Swiss developer files class-action lawsuit citing predatory practices that harm competition and consumers.
Privacy-focused software company Proton AG filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple on June 30, 2025, alleging the iPhone maker maintains illegal monopolies in app distribution and payment processing markets.
The 73-page complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Apple of "willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power" through exclusionary conduct that "eliminates competition and extracts supracompetitive profits from app developers."
Proton, based in Geneva, Switzerland, has emerged as a global leader in privacy-focused technology with more than 100 million user accounts across 180+ countries. The company offers secure alternatives to Apple's ecosystem, including Proton Mail (Apple Mail), Proton Calendar (Apple Calendar), Proton Drive (iCloud), and Proton Pass (Keychain).
The lawsuit represents a class of similarly situated developers who have been forced to pay Apple's commission rates of up to 30 percent on all transactions processed through iOS apps. Throughout the Class Period, Proton paid Apple supracompetitive commissions—up to thirty percent (30%)—on all purchases and payments related to Proton's iOS apps, and was damaged thereby.
Get the PPC Land newsletter ✉️ for more like this.
Summary
Who: Proton AG, a Swiss privacy-focused technology company, filed a class-action lawsuit representing millions of iOS app developers against Apple Inc.
What: Antitrust lawsuit alleging Apple maintains illegal monopolies in smartphone, app distribution, and payment processing markets through exclusionary conduct including technical restrictions, contractual prohibitions, and supracompetitive commission rates up to 30%.
When: Filed June 30, 2025, joining an existing class-action suit initiated by Korean developers on May 23, 2025.
Where: US District Court for the Northern District of California, with implications for global app markets and digital competition policy.
Why: Proton argues Apple's monopolistic practices harm competition, suppress innovation, inflate consumer prices, and enable censorship while enriching Apple through artificial barriers that prevent viable alternatives to its App Store and payment systems.
Get the PPC Land newsletter ✉️ for more like this.
Allegations of systematic exclusion
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.
The complaint details how Apple's conduct extends beyond mere exclusion of competitors. 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.
According to the filing, Apple realized early on that it could make enormous additional profits if it exerted complete control over the various aftermarkets into which iPhone users were locked once they purchased their device. The lawsuit describes how Apple leveraged its smartphone market position to create monopolies in both iOS app distribution and payment processing markets.
Technical restrictions block competition
The complaint outlines specific technological measures Apple implemented to prevent alternative app stores. Apple's 2018 and 2019 technical restrictions included introducing runtime code modification prevention, pointer authentication, physical map codesigning, memory tagging extensions, and other control mechanisms that specifically target and prevent alternative app stores from competing with Apple.
These changes had immediate effects. Apple's late 2018 change foreclosed competition on iPhone XS and later models (i.e., models released September 2018 and afterward), and its late 2019 changes made it so app store competitors could no longer operate on earlier models, meaning that, for the first time in 2019, Apple finally succeeded in excluding all competition on pre-September 2018 iPhone models.
Payment processing monopoly
Apple largely keeps a stranglehold on payment processing through its control of the iOS mobile operating system. Specifically, in most cases, Apple mandates that the only payment processing service allowed within iOS applications is Apple's own payment processing service.
The lawsuit notes recent policy changes but characterizes them as insufficient. While Apple nominally allows steering to alternative payment methods in some cases, Apple maintains strict control over such uses and, in many cases, charges excessive fees that render those alternatives largely ineffective.
Global regulatory recognition
The filing emphasizes that Apple's conduct has drawn regulatory scrutiny worldwide. 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.
Court contempt findings
This Court recently found Apple in violation of its 2021 injunction in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR, ECF No. 1508 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2025). The Court found that "Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity. . . . Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction's goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream."
The court's findings were particularly damning. Not only did Apple ignore the Court issued-injunction in order to continue its anticompetitive conduct, it attempted to "hide the truth" of its behavior from the Court—even going to such lengths as to "outright lie[] under oath." The Court referred the matter to the United States Attorney for investigation of criminal contempt.
Developer harm and restricted innovation
The lawsuit details how Apple's policies specifically harm privacy-focused developers like Proton. Apple's exclusionary App Store policies and anti-competitive restrictions have directly harmed Proton and impeded its ability to compete on the merits. As a privacy-focused alternative to Apple's ecosystem of apps, Proton is subject to arbitrary delays, opaque guidelines, and exploitative fees that disadvantage its products in the marketplace.
Apple has, with every new model of the iPhone and every new version of iOS (including those models and versions released within the four years preceding this complaint), consistently applied ever-more-restrictive means to try and snuff out alternative app stores and for years effectively limited them to just a tiny swath of iPhone owners.
Technical barriers to alternatives
The complaint describes how Apple created specific obstacles for competing services. Similarly in June 2019, a store called AltStore, which would have allowed iPhone users to download apps without jailbreaking their phone, was made available for download directly from the internet outside of the App Store. Soon thereafter, Apple killed this new offering because of the competitive threat it represented, once again by changing its code specifically to prevent that alternative app store from working.
Market power and switching costs
According to the filing, Apple has market power in the relevant U.S. smartphone market, as demonstrated by numerous different pieces of evidence. First, since introducing the iPhone, Apple has steadily gained market share in the smartphone market and for the last several years held well over 50% share of that relevant product market in the U.S. (with market share today in at least the 54% range, and growing).
The lawsuit emphasizes how Apple creates barriers for users wanting to switch platforms. Consumer switching costs are high in this market. These switching costs increase over time for a variety of reasons, including, among other things, the cost of the mobile device (typically hundreds, if not over a thousand, dollars); the user's familiarity with the operating system and unwillingness to learn a different operating system.
Broader implications
A congressional panel recently condemned Apple as a monopolist the likes of which "we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons." According to a recent U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee report, "Apple leverages its control of iOS and the App Store to create and enforce barriers to competition and discriminate against and exclude rivals while preferencing its own offerings."
The case represents the latest challenge to Big Tech's control over digital marketplaces. Apple faces trial as federal court denies motion to dismiss antitrust lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice, which alleges the company illegally monopolizes smartphone markets through restrictive practices.
Relief sought
Proton requests that the Court enter injunctive relief, including but not limited to: Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access to any Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first or exclusively on the Apple App Store.
The requested remedies include requiring Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Store catalog, permitting distribution of competing app stores through the Apple App Store, and allowing developers to implement alternative payment systems without penalty.
Why this matters
The outcome of this case could fundamentally reshape mobile advertising and app monetization strategies. Google ordered to open Android App Store in antitrust ruling has already begun changing how marketers approach Android campaigns, and similar changes to iOS could create new opportunities for competition and innovation.
Apple rebrands Search Ads business as 'Apple Ads' amid expansion demonstrates the company's growing advertising ambitions, while regulatory challenges could limit its ability to leverage platform control for competitive advantage.
For developers and marketers, increased competition in app distribution could mean lower fees, more flexible payment options, and reduced dependency on a single platform for reaching iOS users. However, it could also create complexity in campaign management and attribution across multiple distribution channels.
Timeline
- March 21, 2024: DOJ and 15 states file antitrust lawsuit against Apple
- April 30, 2025: Federal judge finds Apple in contempt in Epic Games case
- May 23, 2025: Korean Publishers Association files parallel class-action suit
- June 30, 2025: Proton joins lawsuit, filing separate complaint
- June 30, 2025: Federal court denies Apple's motion to dismiss DOJ antitrust case