Apple denied COVID app to secure contact tracing monopoly, lawsuit claims
Apple has been hit with a lawsuit claiming that it rejected a coronavirus contact tracing app to maintain a COVID-19 exposure notification monopoly.
Credit: Apple
The lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the New Hampshire District on Tuesday, centers on a smartphone application called "Coronavirus Reporter" that was denied entry to the App Store in March 2020.
Coronavirus Reporter, the lawsuit claims, was developed by a team of healthcare and computer science experts in February 2020 to "capture and obtain critical biostatistical and epidemiological data as it happened."
The team behind the app completed its development on March 3, the complaint continues. That's about the time that Apple barred coronavirus-related apps that weren't from recognized medical, government, or other institutions from the App Store.
The tech giant in an announcement posted to its developer website in mid-March last year noted its commitment to making the App Store a "safe and trusted place," saying it was evaluating coronavirus-related apps "critically to ensure data sources are reputable and that developers presenting these apps are from recognized entities such as government organizations, health-focused NGOs, companies deeply credentialed in health issues, and medical or educational institutions." It also recognized the time-sensitive nature of publishing said apps and made accommodations to expedite the review process.
After Apple rejected Coronavirus Reporter, the app's developers appealed. The title was ultimately rejected some 20 days later because it was not backed by a recognized healthcare company and its "user-generated data has not been vetted for accuracy by a reputable source."
The complaint says that Apple allowed another app that functioned similarly onto the App Store about a month later. It also takes issue with the Apple and Google Exposure Notification framework, which it says is "largely a failure."
Beyond ensuring accurate data from legitimate sources, Apple's cross-platform Exposure Notification protocol, developed in partnership with Google, is built on a privacy-first framework. The system denies storage of personal data on central servers and relies on anonymized Bluetooth beacons on user devices until participants elect to share the information with an outside party. If and when a user is diagnosed with COVID-19, they can opt to upload a 14-day list of recent contacts (again, anonymized) to a distribution server, which matches beacon IDs and sends out notifications alerting those individuals that they came in close contact with a carrier of the virus. Doctors can also peruse the data, if such access is granted.
Third-party apps that integrate with the Exposure Notification API must adhere to Apple's rules.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple blocked Coronavirus Reporter in an effort to maintain a monopoly on contact tracing applications. Additionally, it claims that Apple's ability to "arbitrarily determine which applications will or will not be published has substantial anti-competitive effects."
The lawsuit says that these actions constitute violations of the anti-monopoly Sherman Act. It seeks an enjoinment on the alleged anti-competitive behavior; damages in excess of $75,000; and a permanent injunction restraining Apple's ability to "[restrict] reasonable applications."
Credit: Apple
The lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the New Hampshire District on Tuesday, centers on a smartphone application called "Coronavirus Reporter" that was denied entry to the App Store in March 2020.
Coronavirus Reporter, the lawsuit claims, was developed by a team of healthcare and computer science experts in February 2020 to "capture and obtain critical biostatistical and epidemiological data as it happened."
The team behind the app completed its development on March 3, the complaint continues. That's about the time that Apple barred coronavirus-related apps that weren't from recognized medical, government, or other institutions from the App Store.
The tech giant in an announcement posted to its developer website in mid-March last year noted its commitment to making the App Store a "safe and trusted place," saying it was evaluating coronavirus-related apps "critically to ensure data sources are reputable and that developers presenting these apps are from recognized entities such as government organizations, health-focused NGOs, companies deeply credentialed in health issues, and medical or educational institutions." It also recognized the time-sensitive nature of publishing said apps and made accommodations to expedite the review process.
After Apple rejected Coronavirus Reporter, the app's developers appealed. The title was ultimately rejected some 20 days later because it was not backed by a recognized healthcare company and its "user-generated data has not been vetted for accuracy by a reputable source."
The complaint says that Apple allowed another app that functioned similarly onto the App Store about a month later. It also takes issue with the Apple and Google Exposure Notification framework, which it says is "largely a failure."
Beyond ensuring accurate data from legitimate sources, Apple's cross-platform Exposure Notification protocol, developed in partnership with Google, is built on a privacy-first framework. The system denies storage of personal data on central servers and relies on anonymized Bluetooth beacons on user devices until participants elect to share the information with an outside party. If and when a user is diagnosed with COVID-19, they can opt to upload a 14-day list of recent contacts (again, anonymized) to a distribution server, which matches beacon IDs and sends out notifications alerting those individuals that they came in close contact with a carrier of the virus. Doctors can also peruse the data, if such access is granted.
Third-party apps that integrate with the Exposure Notification API must adhere to Apple's rules.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple blocked Coronavirus Reporter in an effort to maintain a monopoly on contact tracing applications. Additionally, it claims that Apple's ability to "arbitrarily determine which applications will or will not be published has substantial anti-competitive effects."
The lawsuit says that these actions constitute violations of the anti-monopoly Sherman Act. It seeks an enjoinment on the alleged anti-competitive behavior; damages in excess of $75,000; and a permanent injunction restraining Apple's ability to "[restrict] reasonable applications."
Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "https://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();
Comments
There are COVID-19 contact tracing apps which are backed by Government and its Healthcare agency from other countries that have been approved and still available in App Store. How would that be a ‘Monopoly’?
Plus a monopoly on a free app that generates no revenue? What would be the point even if it were true?
My customers, My rules, and My store and since the Supreme Court has already stated that as a PRIVATE business I have First Amendment Rights, I just arbitrarily exercised My RIGHTS and I will not allow your App into My Store!
that you are an established, recognized institution or government, how is Apple to guarantee that the data you collect isn’t going to be exploited somehow?
data and HIPAA.
Ironically, a lot of states didn’t work with Apple and Google for contact tracing anyway. So even if “Coronavirus Reporter” did end up on the App Store, it doesn’t mean it would be a success.
/e/ project ———— Linux phone is coming.
"Digital tyranny"
Not showing a lot of confidence there.
In reflection of the enormous amount of covid-disinformation disseminated (including that spouted from certain political figures) - Apple's requirement that covid information apps have reputable backing seems to be a minimal barrier to entry.
Obviously, they needed to market this app to government and health care entities so their app would be approved by Apple. They didn't do that, so I don't se how they have a case.
It's not like a government or health care entities write these apps themselves -- they contract out or buy a private company's app to promote. Their first customer needed to be a government or healthcare entity.