Legal Proceedings
+Added: Digital Markets Act Investigations
+Added: On March 25, 2024, the European Commission (the “Commission”) announced that it had opened two formal noncompliance investigations against the Company under the European Union (“EU”) Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”).
+Added: The Commission’s investigations concern (1) Article 5(4) of the DMA, which relates to how developers may communicate and promote offers to end users for apps distributed through the App Store as well as how developers may conclude contracts with those end users;
+Added: and (2) Article 6(3) of the DMA, which relates to default settings, uninstallation of apps, and a web browser choice screen on iOS.
+Added: If the Commission concludes that there has been a violation, it can issue a cease and desist order and may impose fines up to 10% of the Company’s annual worldwide net sales.
+Added: Although any decision by the Commission can be appealed to the General Court of the EU, the effectiveness of the Commission’s order would apply immediately while the appeal is pending, unless a stay of the order is granted.
+Added: The Company believes that it complies with the DMA and will continue to engage with the Commission as it conducts its investigations.
+Added: Department of Justice Lawsuit
+Added: On March 21, 2024, the U.S.
+Added: Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and 16 state and district attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S.
+Added: District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company alleging monopolization or attempted monopolization in the markets for “performance smartphones” and “smartphones” in violation of U.S.
+Added: antitrust laws.
+Added: The DOJ is seeking equitable relief to redress the alleged anticompetitive behavior.
+Added: In addition, various civil litigation matters have been filed in state and federal courts in the U.S.
+Added: alleging similar violations of U.S.
+Added: antitrust laws and seeking monetary damages and other nonmonetary relief.
+Added: The Company believes it has substantial defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself.
Epic Games, Inc.
(“Epic”) filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”) against the Company alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and California’s unfair competition law based upon the Company’s operation of its App Store ® .
−Removed: On September 10, 2021, the District Court ruled in favor of the Company with respect to nine out of the ten counts included in Epic’s claim.
−Removed: The District Court found that certain provisions of the Company’s App Store Review Guidelines violate California’s unfair competition law and issued an injunction enjoining the Company from prohibiting developers from including in their apps external links that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than Apple in-app purchasing.
+Added: District Court for the Northern District of California (the “California District Court”) against the Company alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and California’s unfair competition law based upon the Company’s operation of its App Store.
+Added: The California District Court found that certain provisions of the Company’s App Store Review Guidelines violate California’s unfair competition law and issued an injunction enjoining the Company from prohibiting developers from including in their apps external links that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than Apple in-app purchasing.
The injunction applies to apps on the U.S.
storefront of the iOS and iPadOS ® App Store.
−Removed: On April 24, 2023, the U.S.
−Removed: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Circuit Court”) affirmed the District Court’s ruling.
−Removed: On June 7, 2023, the Company and Epic filed petitions with the Circuit Court requesting further review of the decision.
−Removed: On June 30, 2023, the Circuit Court denied both petitions.
−Removed: On July 17, 2023, the Circuit Court granted Apple’s motion to stay enforcement of the injunction pending appeal to the U.S.
−Removed: Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”).
−Removed: On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court denied both the Company’s and Epic’s petitions and the stay terminated.
−Removed: The Supreme Court’s denial of Epic’s petition confirms the District Court’s ruling in favor of the Company with respect to all of the antitrust claims.
−Removed: Following termination of the stay, the Company implemented a plan to comply with the injunction and filed a statement of compliance with the District Court.
−Removed: On January 31, 2024, Epic filed a notice with the District Court indicating its intent to dispute the Company’s compliance plan.
−Removed: Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc.
−Removed: (together, “Masimo”) filed a complaint before the U.S.
−Removed: International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) alleging infringement by the Company of five patents relating to the functionality of the blood oxygen feature in Apple Watch ® Series 6 and 7.
−Removed: In its complaint, Masimo sought a permanent exclusion order prohibiting importation to the U.S.
−Removed: of certain Apple Watch models that include blood oxygen sensing functionality.
−Removed: On October 26, 2023, the ITC entered a limited exclusion order (the “Order”) prohibiting importation and sales in the U.S.
−Removed: of Apple Watch models with blood oxygen sensing functionality, which includes Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra™ 2.
−Removed: The Company subsequently proposed a redesign of Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 to the U.S.
−Removed: Customs and Border Protection (the “CBP”) and appealed the Order.
−Removed: On January 12, 2024, the CBP found that the Company’s proposed redesign of Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 falls outside the scope of the Order, permitting the Company to import and sell the models in the U.S.
+Added: On January 16, 2024, the Company implemented a plan to comply with the injunction and filed a statement of compliance with the California District Court.
+Added: On March 13, 2024, Epic filed a motion with the California District Court disputing the Company’s compliance plan and seeking to enforce the injunction.
+Added: The Company has filed an opposition to Epic’s motion.
+Added: The Company believes it has substantial defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself.
Other Legal Proceedings
The Company is subject to other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business.
−Removed: The Company settled certain matters during the first quarter of 2024 that did not individually or in the aggregate have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.
+Added: The Company settled certain matters during the second quarter of 2024 that did not individually or in the aggregate have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.
The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain.
1 unchanged sentence
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.