Proton Sues Apple: A Battle Against App Store Monopoly

On June 30, 2025, Swiss privacy-focused tech company Proton, known for its encrypted email service Proton Mail, filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit accuses Apple of maintaining an illegal monopoly over iPhone app distribution and in-app payments, alleging that its App Store policies stifle competition, harm developers, and degrade user privacy. This legal action, joined by other developers like the Korean Publishers Association, marks a significant escalation in the ongoing scrutiny of Apple’s control over its ecosystem.

The Core of Proton’s Complaint

Proton’s lawsuit centers on Apple’s mandatory 30% commission on in-app purchases, which it calls an “artificial and arbitrary tax” on internet commerce. Developers are required to use Apple’s payment system, and alternative app stores are banned on iOS, leaving developers with no choice but to comply. Proton argues that these practices violate U.S. antitrust laws by creating a monopolistic environment that suppresses innovation and inflates prices for consumers. The company also claims that Apple’s policies disproportionately harm privacy-focused developers like itself, as they rely on subscription-based models rather than data monetization, unlike tech giants such as Meta and Google. This structure, Proton asserts, entrenches a “surveillance capitalism” model that prioritizes user data exploitation over privacy.

Additionally, Apple’s restrictive rules prevent developers from linking to external websites or informing users about alternative payment options, such as discounts available outside the App Store. For instance, Proton notes it cannot link to its FAQ or customer support pages within its apps, as Apple fears users might navigate to pricing pages and bypass its fees. Such controls, Proton argues, not only limit developer freedom but also degrade the user experience by restricting transparency.

Context and Precedents

This lawsuit builds on a growing wave of legal challenges against Apple. The European Commission fined Apple €500 million in April 2025 for violating competition laws, and a U.S. court in the Epic Games v. Apple case found Apple’s conduct so egregious that it referred the company for potential criminal contempt proceedings. The Epic case also mandated that Apple allow developers to link to external payment systems without charging commissions, a ruling Apple is still appealing. Proton’s case leverages these precedents, citing evidence from the Epic trial that Apple’s App Store fees yield a 78% profit margin, casting doubt on Apple’s claim that the fees are necessary for maintenance.

However, Apple has defenders who argue that App Stores are costly to operate, providing services like distribution, payment processing, and development tools that benefit smaller developers. Some X posts and comments on platforms like Reddit suggest that the 30% commission is reasonable compared to the 70–90% costs developers faced before app stores existed. Critics of Proton’s stance argue that breaking Apple’s ecosystem could fragment the iOS experience and increase costs for developers who rely on Apple’s infrastructure.

Implications and Proton’s Goals

Proton’s lawsuit seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief to force Apple to allow competing app stores and payment processors on iOS. The company has pledged to donate any damages received to organizations fighting for democracy and human rights, emphasizing its commitment to broader societal benefits. Proton’s CEO, Andy Yen, stated, “We sued Apple to set an important precedent that free people, not monopolies, will dictate the future of the internet.” This rhetoric positions Proton as a champion of digital freedom, though skeptics might see it as a strategic move to gain public support.

The lawsuit also highlights Apple’s alleged censorship of privacy-focused apps, particularly in authoritarian markets like China and Russia, where Apple has removed VPNs and other tools at the behest of local governments. This raises questions about whether Apple’s policies prioritize profit over ethical considerations, a point that could resonate with privacy-conscious consumers.

Critical Perspective

While Proton’s arguments about Apple’s monopolistic practices are compelling, they must be weighed against the complexities of app store economics. Apple’s closed ecosystem ensures security and consistency, which many users value. Fragmenting this system could introduce risks like malware or inconsistent user experiences, as seen in less regulated platforms. Moreover, Proton’s focus on privacy might overlook the fact that many users willingly trade data for free services, a model that Apple’s fees don’t directly incentivize but rather coexist with. The lawsuit’s success hinges on proving that Apple’s practices are not just restrictive but illegally anti-competitive, a high bar given Apple’s partial victory in the Epic case.

Looking Ahead

The outcome of Proton AG v. Apple Inc. could reshape the mobile app landscape. A ruling in favor of Proton could lower costs for developers and consumers, as seen in Yen’s claim that prices could drop by up to 30% without Apple’s fees. However, it could also disrupt Apple’s tightly controlled ecosystem, potentially affecting its ability to maintain quality and security. As the case progresses, it will likely fuel debates about the balance between competition, innovation, and user experience in the tech industry.