According to a lawsuit filed last week against a California company, Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) should be liable for hosting digital currency fraud apps on the App Store.
Suits are intended to be a class action lawsuit. Brought by Danyell Shin. DanyellShin downloaded what he claimed to be a digital asset exchange app called SwiftCrypt from the Apple App Store. Instead, they sought a deposit worth $80,000 from Shin before halting responses to all user interactions.
The lawsuit covers Apple. The App Store is said to contain several malicious apps designed solely to extract digital assets from people who make mistakes with real digital asset applications.
“Because Apple constitutes its ecosystem, customers rely on Apple because they recognize Apple’s safety and reliability.”
It cites many instances of Apple’s marketing surrounding the App Store, dating back to Steve Jobs’ press conference, describing the late founder as “an advanced system that provides broad access for developers to natively program the iPhone’s amazing software platform, while also protecting users from malicious programs.”
In addition to expressing the representation from Apple, the suit points to the centrality of the App Store’s overall Apple ecosystem, particularly the practice of exclusively controlling how applications are distributed to iOS devices. The lawsuit argues that this gives users a false sense of security that they can trust Apple’s review and review process to protect it from “insafe or fraudulent” applications.
The lawsuit is as follows:
“As a direct result of Apple’s process for reviewing the SwiftCrypt app on the App Store and Apple’s process that reasonably relies on Apple’s representatives to make the app reviewed, safe and reliable, the plaintiff was injured and lost about $80,000.”
“Contrary to Apple’s process of representation and fixing, the plaintiffs and other users of SwitCrypt were notified by Apple that SwiftCrypt is a dangerous app used for fraud and malicious activities.
The lawsuit collects two counts against Apple. One is because of a violation of competition law, and the other is a violation of California’s consumer protection law.
The lawsuit proposes to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of someone wearing the same shoes as Singh, so the court must first “prove” the class.
Apple has not yet responded to the lawsuit. But the exclusiveness arrangements around its app store have been a skeleton of legal disputes for many years. The most well-known challenge, Epic Games v Apple, was submitted by App Developers, complained about Apple’s terminology. Apple prevents Apple from including “in-app purchases that don’t go through the App Store” that reduces developer revenue by 30%. Apple’s practices were primarily born out of litigation.
This week, a £1.5 billion ($2 billion) competitive competition lawsuit will be brought to court in London. Apple has said it will act as a monopoly by denounceing anti-competitive behaviour against App Store monopoly and preventing alternatives that could allow consumers and developers to trade better.
The latest lawsuit is Shin v Apple Inc. The case number is 5:25-CV-05000.
Viewing: Decompose solutions to blockchain regulations hurdles
With tag:
App StoreappleDanil SinghscamscamSteve JobsSwiftCrypt
Discover more from Earlybirds Invest
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
