apple

THE US CONGRESS STANDS UP FOR APPLE AND CONSUMER PRIVACY EVERYWHERE

MARCH 13, 2025 | Today a bipartisan group of US lawmakers signed onto a joint letter calling on the UK’s government to immediately bring transparency to their upcoming hearing for Apple on March 14th. The American technology company has found themselves in a standoff with the UK’s Home Office, which demanded backdoor access to encrypted Apple iCloud data under the Investigatory Powers Act.

Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., London and Ottawa reacted to the letter from Congress:

“British authorities are actively harming their own people’s privacy and data security by pursuing backdoor access to Apple’s consumer encryption. The United States correctly sees this as a domestic threat, because a backdoor in the UK means a backdoor for access to Apple users’ cloud data everywhere.”

The demand by US Senators Ron Wyden and Alex Padilla, as well as Congressmen Andy Biggs, Warren Davidson and Zoe Lofgren, is that the UK make their March 14th hearing public so that its proceedings can be analyzed by cybersecurity experts and the US Congress.

“The US government has changed its tune in recent years on the issue of encryption. They went from being outright hostile to encryption like the kind Apple provides, over concerns about countering terrorism, to then realizing it was the only thing keeping consumers safe whatsoever from massive foreign hacks,” Kent continued.

Mike Salem of the Consumer Choice Center’s UK office told media in February about the clash between British authorities and Apple, saying “This marks a very sad day for the basic principle of consumer privacy in the 21st century, depriving users of the tools that leave UK citizens exposed to governments, criminals and malicious hackers. The fact this has been done without debate, oversight or advance warning to UK Apple users is extremely concerning.”

The Consumer Choice Center applauds Republicans and Democrats of the US Congress, as well as the Trump Administration, in their vocal defense of consumer privacy in the case of Apple vs the UK’s Home Office. We hope the Investigatory Powers Tribunal yields to the request of the US Congress and makes their hearing public, before taking steps to walk back this disastrous attack on encryption which has left UK consumers without the protection of Apple’s Advanced Data Protection tool.

###

FOR UK or US MEDIA QUERIES and INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org.

DNI Director Gabbard Stands Up For Apple & Consumer Privacy

FEB 27, 2025 | Tulsi Gabbard, now U.S. Director of National Intelligence, has confirmed that U.S. officials and DNI lawyers are now reviewing whether the United Kingdom breached a bilateral treaty known as the CLOUD Act. Under the agreement, the UK is prohibited from demanding access to the data of U.S. citizens or individuals within U.S. borders.

Stephen Kent, Media Director for the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., reacted to news of Gabbard’s invoking the CLOUD Act:

“Gabbard is spot on in her defense of American consumers at home and abroad being threatened by the UK’s effort to break Apple’s encryption for users. The nature of consumer encryption tech is that if it’s broken anywhere, it’s broken everywhere. The UK is acting more like China and less like a democratic ally of the US.”

The UK’s Home Office demanded access to encrypted Apple iCloud data under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA, which would create a “backdoor” for the UK to Apple’s encryption for all its consumers worldwide. As a result, Apple has opted to suspend its Advanced Data Protection encryption feature for UK users.

“This mode of thinking is why Europe was taken off guard last week by Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference. What Gabbard is pointing out in her defense of encryption is that an ally of the United States is trying to violate their citizens’ privacy in a way that compromises consumers in the United States,” Kent continued.

“The FBI under former Director Christopher Wray used to advocate for the same ‘backdoor’ access to encryption, but they’ve since changed their tune about encryption because of the rising threat of foreign data hacks, which pose huge risks to American consumers and companies.”

Cybersecurity analysts have long warned that any backdoor created for a government could eventually be discovered and misused by cybercriminals and hostile foreign actors. The UK’s push to weaken encryption disregards these risks, potentially exposing sensitive data to hackers and bad actors worldwide.

Kent concluded, “There are few consumer privacy issues as important in the world today as maintaining the integrity of encryption technology and services. The Trump Administration should pull no punches in letting Keir Starmer’s government know that this kind of ‘big brother’ behavior won’t be tolerated and makes our people worse off.”

FOR MEDIA QUERIES OR INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

The UK Government’s spying requests force Apple to phase out encryption for users

London, UK – As of this afternoon, new Apple users in the UK can no longer enable Advanced Data Protection (APD) of their data, an end-to-end encrypted backup. In response to the government’s requests to secure a backdoor to Apple’s encrypted ecosystem, the company has decided to abandon this feature, and will still only provide data with law enforcement, if they have a warrant.

In a statement, Mike Salem, UK Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), reacted to the news:

“This unfortunate move is a direct result of the government’s own decision to force tech companies to hand over the keys to our data, giving them a blank cheque to access any of our information without due process.”

“Everyone in the UK should be extremely worried about what the government aims to access not just in the UK, but across the world. Over 40 public authorities, including police, intelligence agencies, HMRC, and even local councils can apply for such warrants with broad powers for communication and data surveillance, and with guaranteed approval.”

“The UK government has set a precedent, and cast a new reputation that underscores the erosion of personal liberties and privacy in a digital age where these values are needed more than ever.”

“This marks a very sad day for the basic principle of consumer privacy in the 21st century, depriving users of the tools that leave UK citizens exposed to governments, criminals and malicious hackers. The fact this has been done without debate, oversight or advance warning to UK Apple users is extremely concerning.”

The CCC calls on the government to once again outline its reasons for the necessity and proportionality of such measures as soon as Monday in Parliament, and to urge parliamentarians in opposition to hold the government to account so that consumers can once again elect to encrypt and secure their data.

The Consumer Choice Center is a non-profit organisation dedicated to defending the rights of consumers around the world. Our mission is to promote freedom of choice, healthy competition and evidence-based policies that benefit consumers. We work to ensure that consumers have access to a variety of quality products and services and can make informed decisions about their lifestyle and consumption.

The UK Wants a Backdoor into EVERYONE’S Apple Cloud Data

Hide your group chat history. The UK has demanded Apple build a backdoor to its encryption services, giving the British police full key access to any Apple consumer’s content stored on the cloud.

And yes that means Apple users everywhere. Not just specific British users, but you, me, and every boomer with an iPhone. And if they comply with the British on this, Apple won’t even be permitted to warn consumers that the security of data doesn’t include security from the British government.

Break Apple’s Encryption For All Its Users

The British government has served Apple with a Technical Capability Notice under the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016, also known as the Snoopers’ Charter—a fitting name, considering its intent. This law gives law enforcement the power to demand access to encrypted communications, overriding any security measures tech companies put in place.

But here’s the kicker: Apple wouldn’t even be allowed to warn its users that this is happening. We only know about this development because of leaks being reported by tech journalists at the Washington Post. This isn’t about targeting specific criminals with a warrant. The UK wants Apple to create a master key, a built-in vulnerability that would let the government unlock any iPhone’s cloud-stored content at will. And if Apple complies? The floodgates open.

Mike Salem of the Consumer Choice Center’s UK team put it well by saying,

“This is far beyond proportional as a response to national security threats, and sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Notices such as these will be served to other companies and other countries will want access to the same data the UK is trying to access. Crucially, it leaves all iCloud users in a vulnerable position, with information such as their personal details and photos exposed and un-encrypted, allowing criminals and foreign adversaries full access.”

Why Encryption Matters

Encryption is the bedrock of digital security.

At its most basic, it’s no different than when you’re in school and passing a note in class but every word is coded to mean something else so that the contents are a secret. See You After Class For Football Practice could be coded 10 thousand different ways and actually mean This Teacher Is Super Weird OMG Cringe. Like with ciphers or coded messages, letters are scrambled, but with digital encryption, the code – or key –for the note passed in class, changes after every single use. In the real world, that is the foundation of encrypted chat like WhatsApp, Signal, or iMessage on an Apple device or even HTTPS on your browser.

Governments have long been frustrated by this. Former FBI Director Christopher Wray once argued before Congress that they should legislate a ban on commercial and personal encryption to help law enforcement catch criminals. He later reversed his position to encryption being the best consumer bulwark against Chinese hacks. The argument is always the same: they need access to encrypted devices to investigate crimes.

What the UK Is Demanding

Here’s the problem—weakening encryption for one case weakens it for everyone. If Apple builds a backdoor for the UK government, it’s only a matter of time before other governments demand the same access. And once an encryption backdoor exists, it’s a security risk that bad actors could exploit.

Rather than requesting access to specific user data through proper legal channels, the UK government is demanding a built-in backdoor that would allow authorities to unlock and access any Apple user’s stored data at will.

Apple has long resisted such demands, particularly when it comes to iPhone security. The company introduced Advanced Data Protection (ADP) in 2022, allowing users to fully encrypt their iCloud backups—meaning not even Apple could access them. It was a long-awaited move, especially after the FBI pressured Apple to delay rolling it out years earlier during Trump’s presidency.

Most iPhone and Mac users don’t enable ADP, but those who do gain significantly stronger protections against hacking, unauthorized surveillance, and data breaches. If Apple complies with the UK’s order, this level of security could be erased overnight.

What Happens Next?

Right now, Apple is legally forbidden from confirming whether it received the UK’s demand. However, leaks suggest Apple’s likely response will be to end encrypted storage in the UK entirely rather than compromise its security model. That decision would impact millions of UK users, but it’s entirely in the hands of secretive review boards that Apple will be appealing to behind closed doors.

The Bigger Picture

This fight is part of a larger trend—governments worldwide are pushing for more control over encrypted services, whether it’s cloud storage, messaging apps, or even VPNs that let users bypass restrictive online regulations.

But here’s the reality: Apple knows that consumers expect privacy, and it has shown a willingness to fight for encryption when it matters. That’s why it’s crucial to speak up, vote with your wallet, and protect your data.

Enable Advanced Data Protection
Update your passwords regularly
Stay informed on digital privacy laws

Because once encryption is gone, it’s gone for good.

DOJ’s Apple “monopoly” lawsuit is an attack on consumer preference

March 21, 2024
By Stephen Kent
In Antitrust, Press Release, Tech Regulation, Technology, Uncategorized
0 comments

Washington, D.C. – Today the DOJ unveiled its long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging that Apple maintains an “illegal monopoly” over the smartphone industry.

“This is a very extreme position being taken by Merrick Garland’s DOJ,“ said Stephen Kent, media director of the Consumer Choice Center, “The lawsuit claims that Apple throttles the use of third-party messaging apps despite ample evidence that millions of tech consumers have a wide range of choice for powerful messaging apps that rival the experience of iMessage.”

** Read Stephen Kent in The Hill on DOJ’s weak case against Apple **

The lawsuit also asserts that Apple limits the connectivity of certain competitor devices such as smartwatches, favoring Apple devices in their own ecosystem of technology.

Kent continued, “DOJ is arguing that consumers are wrong to like Apple products and how they sync so nicely with one another. Apple is a fully integrated system of tech and lifestyle brand. For the government to say Apple must build technology to accommodate its competitors at the expense of their user experience, is a huge stretch for antitrust law. This reminds me of the FTC’s witch hunt against Microsoft & Activision/Blizzard, where the US government appeared to be working on behalf of Sony to stop a pro-consumer merger. Apple’s competitors should make products more consumers enjoy the way consumers enjoy Apple.”

The Consumer Choice Center stands for consumers’ right to choose between products in a fair, competitive, and open market. It is unclear how the government’s case against Apple would unleash competition and innovation in the smartphone sector.

** Read Yael Ossowski in The Hill on Apple’s “green bubble” text controversy **

“If anything,” Stephen Kent concluded, “This case will simply lower the bar for smartphone tech and user experience in the US, rather than improving consumer access to technology. Let Apple be Apple.”

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The arguments for and against universal chargers

September 30, 2021
By Maria Chaplia
In Recent Media, Tech Regulation, Technology
0 comments

European Commission pushing to establish USB-C as standard for all phones

The European Commission is under fire from tech giant Apple after unveiling plans to make USB-C connectors the standard charging port for all phones and small electronic devices sold across the EU.

The bloc’s executive body “believes a standard cable for all devices will cut back on electronic waste”, reported France 24. But Apple and other critics argue that “a one-size fits all charger would slow innovation and create more pollution”, the news site continues.

The new rules could “affect the entire global smartphone market” if approved by the European Parliament and member states of the EU, which is home to more than 450 million people including “some of the world’s richest consumers”.

Read the full article here

EU wants to unify chargers again, specifically targeting Apple

September 30, 2021
By Maria Chaplia
In Recent Media, Tech Regulation, Technology
0 comments

Several years ago, the European Union announced that it wanted to unify mobile chargers across all manufacturers. The goal was to eliminate electronic waste because previously switching phones often means getting a new and completely different charger. But, by the time the EU got involved, almost all major manufacturers were already using micro-USB. Now, the EU is looking to update the requirement, modernizing for USB-C and removing the remaining loophole.

What is the current situation?

Currently, EU regulations require that all phones be able to charge via a universal charger (originally micro-USB, but USB-C also qualifies). At the time of the original regulations, the only major manufacturer not using the micro-USB charging port was Apple, which famously uses its proprietary Lightning connector. The universality of the micro-USB connector is attractive for swapping between phones, but Apple argued that its Lightning connector gave it capabilities not afforded by micro-USB.

This argument allowed Apple to find a middle ground with the EU regulators – making a micro-USB to Lightning adapter available to all iPhone and iPad owners. This would allow them to use the chargers they already own with their new phones, which is exactly what the EU was trying to accomplish. But, in the past few years, things have changed in the industry, leading to some changes in the regulations.

Read the full article here

Antitrust tech hearings dig for consumer harm but come up short

Armed with face masks and fresh customer complaints, members of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law convened both virtually and in-person on Thursday, for the first of many hearings on competition in the tech sector.

It was a six-hour marathon of gobbledygook legal turns of phrase and static-prone troubleshooting for lawmakers.

The witnesses were CEOs from some of the four largest companies in America: Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Tim Cook of Apple, and Sundar Pichai of Google.

Together, these companies serve billions of global consumers for a variety of needs, and have become very rich by doing so. They employ millions of people, make up big portions of the American economy, and have been the trailblazers for innovation in virtually every free nation.

It is also true that they’ve made many mistakes, errors in judgment, and have made it easy to be bashed by all sides.

Despite that, these companies are true American success stories. And that’s not even considering the industrious biographies of their CEOs on the witness stand: an immigrant from India; the son of a teenage mother and immigrant stepfather; a college dropout; and a gay southern man shunned by the Ivy League. Each of them is a self-made millionaire or billionaire in their own right.

But in the context of this hearing, they were America’s villains.

The potshots in the hearing came from both Democrat and Republican congressmen, each using their bully pulpits to reel out various accusations and grievances on the representatives from Big Tech. But lost in all of this was the consumer.

The scene was analogous to George Orwell’s Two Minute Hate on repeat, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein replaced by a WebEx video call on full screen with smiling CEOs surrounded by the furniture in their home offices.

For Democrats, these companies have grown far too large using unscrupulous business practices, beating competitors with lower prices, better service, speed, and slick branding – allowing them to purchase or bully their competition.

For Republicans, it’s all about the bias against conservatives online, facilitated by the thorny content moderation that selectively edits which social media posts are allowed to stand.

What’s missing from this story so far? American consumers.

The justification of the hearing was to determine whether these companies have abused the trust of the public and whether consumers have been harmed as a result of their actions.

But more often than not, questions from committee members hinged on the and “business acumen” of decisions taken within the company, classifying rudimentary strategy decisions as illegal and hostile moves.

Platforms Opening to Third-Party Sellers

An example is Rep. Pramila Jayapal, of Washington State. She represents the district where Amazon was founded by Jeff Bezos. She condemned Amazon for collecting data on third-party sellers who are able to use Amazon’s website to sell products.

“You have access to data that your competitors do not have. So you might allow third-party sellers onto your platform, but if you’re continuously monitoring the data to make sure that they’re never going to get big enough to compete with you, that is the concern that the committee actually has,” said Jayapal.

Here, we’re talking about Amazon’s online platform, which sells millions of goods. Two decades ago, Amazon opened up its platform to merchants for a small fee. It was a win for sellers, who could now have easier access to customers, and it was a win for customers who now can buy more products on Amazon, regardless of who the seller was.

When Amazon sees that certain product categories are very popular, they will sometimes make their own, knowing they have the infrastructure to deliver products at high satisfaction. This brand is called Amazon Basics, encompassing everything from audio cables to coolers and batteries.

Rep. Jayapal says that by collecting data on those merchants in their store, Amazon is effectively stealing information…that sellers voluntarily give in exchange for using Amazon’s storefront.

However, the end result of the competition between Amazon’s third-party sellers and Amazon’s own products (on Amazon’s platform) is something that is better for the consumer: there is more competition, more choice, and more high-quality options to choose from. This elevates the experience for a consumer and helps save them money. This is far from harm.

The same can be said of Apple and its App Store, which came under fire from the chairman of the committee, Rep. David Cicilline. He said Apple was charging developers who use the App Store “exorbitant rents” that veered toward “highway robbery”.

Apple CEO Tim Cook was quick to retort by pointing out that the App Store is a platform for its own apps, but it also allows third-party developers to use that store for a fee. This is an entirely new market space that never existed before Apple opened it, and thus is a net gain for any developer who uses the store, and benefits consumers who click and download even more.

Business As Usual

Throughout the hearing, public officials pointed to internal documents as proof of the malfeasance of the tech firms. The documents were unearthed by the committee and contained emails and memos on mergers, acquisitions, and business practices from all four tech firms.

The Financial Times classified these documents as evidence that the companies “chased dominance and sought to protect it.”

Rep. Jared Nadler of New York chased down Mark Zuckerberg for his decision to purchase the photo-app Instagram back in 2012, calling the move “outright illegal” because he believed Facebook bought it to “essentially put them out of business.”

Today, Instagram is an incredibly popular app that has grown to half a billion users, thanks to Facebook’s investments, talent, and integration. It’s made consumers very happy, and has become an attractive product for advertisers as well. Again, no harm for the consumer.

Pro-Consumer, not Pro or Anti-business

One of the most astute lines from the hearing came from the sole representative from North Dakota.

“Usually in our quest to regulate big companies, we end up hurting small companies more,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong. Indeed.

And add to that the eventual scenario whereby only the highly connected and vastly wealthy tech companies will be able to comply with stringent regulation from Washington. That’s not what consumers want, and it’s not what Americans want either.

If Congress aims to use antitrust power to break up or heavily regulate the enterprises built by Google, Amazon, Facebook, or Apple, it won’t be done lightly. It would likely leave a lot of damage in its wake for small and medium-sized businesses, many of whom rely on these major firms to conduct their business. In turn, consumers rely on those companies for products and services.

Each of these companies represent a case study in innovation, entrepreneurship, and giving the people what they want to create a huge network of consumers. There’s a lot to learn there.

Instead of using the law to break up companies, what if we learned from their success to empower more consumers?

Low-battery warning fight

Microsoft’s carbon dating, Google in $1tn club, Logitech’s split keyboard

Don’t tell anyone, but my iPhone charger is hidden under some newspapers on my desk so that it’s less likely to go walkies when I’m not there.

I’ve always taken precautions, with people very eager to “borrow” this vital energy supply, and in future, I may have to bolt my chargers to the desk. The European Union just doubled the chances of me losing them this week when it revived the idea of universal chargers that would fit Apple, Samsung and any other smartphones.

Apart from the extra jeopardy I will face personally, the tech industry’s own selfish interests are in focus here. “The EU-enforced common charger is the enemy of progress” was the headline of a release from the corporate-backed Consumer Choice Center, which said any such move would undermine innovation and restrict competition. It echoed the argument when this last came up from Apple, which is the king of proprietary technologies and whose Lightning connectors are still cursed by anyone wanting to plug in a headphone jack.

I don’t buy their concerns. Where would we be without common USB and HDMI standards, and WiFi and Bluetooth, all with dongle-less backwards compatibility? I would happily trade a little innovation and commercial advantage for those invaluable conformities.

Of course, legislators are always behind the tech curve and the common charger debate would become moot if we all bought wireless charging mats that removed the need for hard connections completely. Then again, some companies are not being as innovative in taking us to that bright new future as they think they are. Apple announced its AirPower wireless charging mats in 2017, but had to cancel the product less than two years later after struggling to make one that worked properly.

The Internet of (Five) Things

1. Microsoft’s carbon dating The software shop has gone further than other tech giants in committing to become “carbon negative” by 2030 and offset all carbon emissions made since it was founded. The $1.2tn company also announced a $1bn innovation fund to tackle the climate crisis.

2. There’s another trillion-dollar tech titan Alphabet on Thursday became the fourth Big Tech company to reach a market capitalisation of $1tn. Apple was the first public company to achieve the milestone, in August 2018, and is now more than a third of the way to a second trillion. It was followed by Amazon, which has since fallen back below the 13-digit threshold, and then Microsoft. Meanwhile, Tesla’s soaring share price is giving short sellers the heebie jeebies.

3. Peacock proud of its free streaming strategy The last major streaming debut is also the cheapest. Comcast unveiled its NBCUniversal Peacock streaming service on Thursday and said it would be free for its existing cable customers when it launches fully in July. There will be live sports and news, a large catalogue of older sitcoms, and the service will primarily rely on advertising rather than the subscriptions favoured by rivals. “We like the idea of zigging when others zag,” said NBCUniversal chairman Steve Burke.

4. WhatsApp won’t rely on ads Facebook is dropping plans to show ads on its WhatsApp messaging service, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. WhatsApp disbanded the team working on integrating ads on to the platform recently and even the code they had created was deleted from the app.

5. Ad industry faces wrath of regulator The UK’s data protection regulator is braced to do battle with the country’s £13bn online advertising industry, saying it will start investigating individual companies that are in breach of European data protection law and enforcing it against them. The Information Commissioner’s Office said the ad industry had responded insufficiently to a six-month grace period to get its house in order.

Originally published here.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org