Legal Proceedings
+Added: Digital Markets Act Investigations
+Added: On March 25, 2024, the Commission announced that it had opened two formal noncompliance investigations against the Company under 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: On June 24, 2024, the Commission announced its preliminary findings in the Article 5(4) investigation alleging that the Company’s App Store rules are in breach of the DMA and announced that it had opened a third formal investigation against the Company regarding whether the Company’s new contractual requirements for third-party app developers and app marketplaces may violate the DMA.
+Added: If the Commission makes a final determination 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 has continued to make changes to its compliance plan in response to feedback and engagement with the Commission.
+Added: Department of Justice Lawsuit
+Added: On March 21, 2024, the U.S.
+Added: Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and a number of 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.
−Removed: Supreme Court denies Apple’s petition, the stay of the injunction will expire.
−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 United States 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 United States of Apple Watch models with blood oxygen sensing functionality, which includes Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2.
−Removed: The Order will not go into effect until the end of the administrative review period, which is currently expected to end on December 25, 2023.
−Removed: The Company intends to appeal the Order and seek a stay pending the appeal.
+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: A motion by Epic disputing the Company’s compliance plan and seeking to enforce the injunction, which the Company has opposed, is pending before the California District Court.
+Added: On September 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion with the California District Court to narrow or vacate the injunction.
+Added: The Company believes it has substantial defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself.
Other Legal Proceedings
7 unchanged sentences
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.