Mike Scarcella
Apple has asked a U.S. court to dismiss a consumer lawsuit accusing the iPhone maker of illegally banning apps that facilitate cryptocurrency transactions and inflating fees for platforms like Venmo and Cash App.
The Cupertino, California-based technology company said in a filing in California federal court on Friday that the four Venmo and Cash App users who filed the antitrust lawsuit did not cite any unlawful app rules or business agreements.
The lawsuit, filed in November, alleges that Apple's restrictions on cryptocurrency technology have stifled competition in peer-to-peer payments and driven up fees for cash and credit card transactions on PayPal's Venmo and Blockchain Cash apps. Apple is the only defendant in the suit.
According to Apple's complaint, the case is based on “highly speculative assumptions” that the company misled consumers by charging exorbitant fees, and the complaint says the company has failed to prove that cryptocurrency transactions are “a reasonable alternative to the instant cash and credit card transactions offered by Venmo and Cash App.”
An Apple spokesman and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
Peer-to-peer payment apps allow users to send money directly to other users' accounts via their mobile devices.
The plaintiffs allege that Apple, Venmo and Cash App “repeatedly raised the prices of transactions and services without any competitive checks,” and that Apple has barred at least two bitcoin wallet apps, according to the complaint.
Apple defended its app guidelines for developers working with crypto technologies, arguing that while it imposes licensing standards, it does not outright ban apps that facilitate cryptocurrency trading.
The lawsuit is one of several accusing Apple of violating antitrust laws.
A federal judge said in September that payment card issuers can sue Apple for alleged anticompetitive behavior regarding its Apple Pay mobile wallet.
The case is Lamartine Pierre et al. v. Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, case number 5:23-cv-05981.
Most read articles on your device
Join a community of over 2 million industry professionals
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest insights and analysis.
Download the ETTelecom app
- Get real-time updates
- Save your favorite articles