Apple appeals against 'political' $1.3 billion French fine

AppleInsider

Apple is asking for the French antitrust watchdog's $1.3 billion fine to be "purely and simply" overturned, claiming that it is baseless and politically motivated.

Apple Opera in Paris

In March 2020, France's Autorite de la Concurrence ruled that Apple had created a cartel with its Tech Data and Ingram Micro wholesalers. Tech Data was fined $70 million and Ingram Micro was fined $84.4 million. Apple was hit with a $1.3 billion fine, and as expected, is now appealing against it.

According to Bloomberg, Apple lawyers have now argued that the case was politically motivated, and used accusations that do not stand up.

"The French Competition Authority clearly wanted to make a mark by hitting hard against Apple," Apple lawyer Melanie Thill-Tayara told judges at the Paris court of appeals.

She said that the antitrust watchdog had a "goal to grab a GAFA" (the abbreviation for big tech firms Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon). Thill-Tayara said that none of the allegations about squeezing other resellers of iPads and Mac were correct.

Thill-Tayara then asked that because of this, the fine be "purely and simply" overturned. Both Tech Data and Ingram Micro are also appealing against their fines.

A decision on the appeal is expected to be announced on November 3, 2022.

Separately, Google is appealing a $592 million fine from France's antitrust regulator.

Read on AppleInsider

mcdave

No! You mean choice has been politically weaponised? I guess what goes around, comes around.

22july2013

AppleInsider said:

According to Bloomberg, Apple lawyers have now argued that the case was politically motivated, and used accusations that do not stand up.

I had to read that twice because it sounded like the article was saying that Apple used applications that do not stand up. But it was "the case" which "used accusations."

But cases, like articles, don't say or use anything. It should be the writers who are attributed. Cases are inanimate and probably shouldn't be anthropomorphized in good prose. 

darelrex

All Apple wants here is certainty of law and its penalties. If a government official can levy fines of arbitrary amount, for unpredictable reasons, then the only hope for being able to do business in that region in the future is if its appellate courts are willing to say, "no, we're not doing that."

tjwolf

mcdave said:

No! You mean choice has been politically weaponised? I guess what goes around, comes around.

No idea what that's supposed to mean - a  poor attempt at trolling?

KTR

Robbery,