{
“ownership”: [],
“management”: [],
“requestGuid”: “bb1d3270-a94d-4464-a2ec-97e5a694c9fe”,
“tptRedFlagQs”: [
{
“id”: “redflag1”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Did the due diligence report contradicts the existence and active status of the third party?”,
“recency”: “”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “No”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: “”
},
“details”: “Entity match was identified and status is Active”
},
{
“id”: “redflag2”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Did the due diligence neglect to identify third partys ultimate beneficial owner?”,
“recency”: “”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “Yes”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: “”
},
“details”: “Neither ownership or controlling shareholder/s indentified”
},
{
“id”: “redflag3”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Allegations of corruption or evidence of bribery?”,
“recency”: “”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “No”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: “”
},
“akaComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“entityComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“wcsearchComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“ownershipComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“managementComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“shareholderComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
}
},
{
“id”: “redflag4”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking, organized crime?”,
“recency”: “”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “No”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: “”
},
“akaComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“entityComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“wcsearchComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“ownershipComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“managementComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“shareholderComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
}
},
{
“id”: “redflag5”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Criminal history or material litigation?”,
“recency”: “2021-05-04”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “Yes”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: 2
},
“akaComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“entityComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [
“Disciplined”,
“Conspiracy”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Antitrust Violations”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Patent Infringement”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Fraud”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Tax Evasion”,
“Unauthorized”,
“Unauthorized”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Investigation”,
“Conspiracy”,
“Investigation”,
“Price Manipulation”,
“Price Manipulation”,
“Price Manipulation”,
“Price Manipulation”
],
“compliance_xid”: [
“976301_2”,
“2562977_35”,
“2562977_1”,
“2562977_2”,
“2562977_4”,
“2562977_4”,
“2562977_5”,
“2562977_7”,
“2562977_10”,
“2562977_17”,
“2562977_17”,
“2562977_18”,
“2562977_19”,
“2562977_21”,
“2562977_21”,
“2562977_26”,
“2562977_27”,
“2562977_29”,
“2562977_30”,
“2562977_31”,
“2562977_32”,
“2562977_34”,
“2562977_35”,
“2562977_37”,
“2562977_38”,
“2562977_22”,
“2562977_13”,
“2562977_15”,
“2562977_24”
]
},
“wcsearchComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“ownershipComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“managementComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“shareholderComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [
“Price Manipulation”
],
“compliance_xid”: [
106340626
]
},
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
}
},
{
“id”: “redflag6”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Foreign officials, politically exposed persons?”,
“recency”: “”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “No”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: “”
},
“akaComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“entityComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“wcsearchComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“ownershipComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“managementComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“shareholderComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
}
},
{
“id”: “redflag7”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Government prohibited persons and entities?”,
“recency”: “2018-10-26”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “Yes”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: 3
},
“akaComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“entityComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [
“Sanctions”
],
“compliance_xid”: [
“2562977_36”
]
},
“wcsearchComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“ownershipComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“managementComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“shareholderComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
}
},
{
“id”: “redflag8”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Government touch-points, state-owned entities?”,
“recency”: “”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “No”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: “”
},
“akaComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“entityComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“wcsearchComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“ownershipComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“managementComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“shareholderComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
}
},
{
“id”: “redflag9”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “High-risk, offshore jurisdictions?”,
“recency”: “”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “No”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: “”
},
“akaComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“entityComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“wcsearchComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“ownershipComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“managementComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“shareholderComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
}
},
{
“id”: “redflag10”,
“value”: {
“desc”: “Did the due diligence report identify any other potentially adverse issues (e.g reputational / controlling party)”,
“recency”: “2018-10-26”,
“comments”: “”,
“flagsFound”: “Yes”,
“isConfirmed”: “”,
“severityScore”: 2
},
“akaComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“entityComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Adverse Media”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”,
“Law & Order”
],
“compliance_xid”: [
“976301_1”,
“2562977_1”,
“2562977_2”,
“2562977_3”,
“2562977_4”,
“2562977_5”,
“2562977_5”,
“2562977_6”,
“2562977_16”,
“2562977_7”,
“2562977_8”,
“2562977_9”,
“2562977_10”,
“2562977_11”,
“2562977_12”,
“2562977_14”,
“2562977_17”,
“2562977_17”,
“2562977_18”,
“2562977_19”,
“2562977_20”,
“2562977_21”,
“2562977_23”,
“2562977_23”,
“2562977_25”,
“2562977_26”,
“2562977_26”,
“2562977_27”,
“2562977_27”,
“2562977_28”,
“2562977_29”,
“2562977_29”,
“2562977_30”,
“2562977_30”,
“2562977_31”,
“2562977_31”,
“2562977_32”,
“2562977_32”,
“2562977_33”,
“2562977_34”,
“2562977_34”,
“2562977_35”,
“2562977_36”,
“2562977_37”,
“2562977_38”
]
},
“wcsearchComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“ownershipComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“managementComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“shareholderComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
},
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: {
“subcategory”: [],
“compliance_xid”: []
}
}
],
“wcSearchHits”: [],
“redFlagReport”: {
“subjectInformation”: {
“city”: “Cupertino”,
“name”: “APPLE INC.”,
“nuts1”: “”,
“nuts2”: “”,
“nuts3”: “”,
“county”: “”,
“status”: “Active”,
“usState”: “CA”,
“website”: [
“www.apple.com”
],
“latitude”: “”,
“postcode”: “95014”,
“faxNumber”: “”,
“longitude”: “”,
“clientName”: “”,
“entityType”: “Public limited company”,
“nationalId”: [
“94-2404110”,
“0000320193”,
“HWUPKR0MPOU8FGXBT394”
],
“sourceDate”: “syndicated records accessed on November 10, 2021”,
“statusDate”: [
null
],
“addressType”: “Registered address / Incorporation address / Legal address”,
“alsoKnownAs”: [],
“phoneNumber”: [
“+1 408 996 1010”
],
“statusCodes”: [
“Active”
],
“worldRegion”: “North America”,
“addressLine1”: “1, APPLE PARK WAY”,
“addressLine2”: “”,
“addressLine3”: “”,
“addressLine4”: “”,
“emailAddress”: “”,
“jurisdiction”: “United States Of America”,
“previousName”: [
“APPLE COMPUTER, INC.”
],
“clientContact”: “”,
“countryRegion”: [
“California”
],
“ISOCountryCode”: “US”,
“cityAdditional”: “”,
“nameChangeDate”: [
“2007-01-09T00:00:00”
],
“nationalIdType”: [
“VAT/Tax number”,
“Company ID number”,
“Company ID number”
],
“businessPurpose”: “Apple Inc. designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related services. The Company s products include iPhone, Mac, iPad, and Wearables, Home and Accessories. iPhone is the Company s line of smartphones based on its iOS operating system. Mac is the Company s line of personal computers based on its macOS operating system. iPad is the Company s line of multi-purpose tablets based on its iPadOS operating system. Wearables, Home and Accessories includes AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod, iPod touch and other Apple-branded and third-party accessories. AirPods are the Company s wireless headphones that interact with Siri. Apple Watch is the Company s line of smart watches. Its services include Advertising, AppleCare, Cloud Services, Digital Content and Payment Services. Its customers are primarily in the consumer, small and mid-sized business, education, enterprise and government markets.”,
“nationalIdLabel”: [
“EIN”,
“CIK”,
“LEI”
],
“productsServices”: "Offers iPhone, a line of smartphones; iPad, a line of multi-purpose tablets; and Mac, a line of desktop and portable personal computers, as well as operating systems comprising iOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS; Provides iWork, an integrated productivity suite that helps users create, present, and publish documents, presentations, and spreadsheets; and other application software, such as Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro X, and FileMaker Pro; Offers Apple TV that connects to consumers; TV and enables them to access digital content directly for streaming high definition video, playing music and games, and viewing photos; Apple Watch, a personal electronic device; and iPod touch, a flash memory-based digital music and media player; Provides Apple-branded and third-party accessories, such as headphones, displays, storage devices, Beats products, and other connectivity and computing products and supplies; Offers iCloud, a cloud service that stores music, photos, contacts, calendars, mail, documents, and others; AppleCare, which offers support options for its customers; and Apple Pay, a cashless payment service ",
“registrationDate”: “1977-01-03T00:00:00”,
“statusChangeDate”: [
null
],
“countryRegionType”: [
“State”
],
“descriptionHistory”: “Apple Inc., incorporated on January 3, 1977, designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related services. The Company s products include iPhone, Mac, iPad, and Wearables, Home and Accessories. iPhone is the Company s line of smartphones based on its iOS operating system. Mac is the Company s line of personal computers based on its macOS operating system. iPad is the Company s line of multi-purpose tablets based on its iPadOS operating system. Wearables, Home and Accessories includes AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod, iPod touch and other Apple-branded and third-party accessories. AirPods are the Company s wireless headphones that interact with Siri. Apple Watch is the Company s line of smart watches. Its services include Advertising, AppleCare, Cloud Services, Digital Content and Payment Services. Its customers are primarily in the consumer, small and mid-sized business, education, enterprise and government markets. The Company sells and delivers digital content and applications through the iTunes Store, App Store, Mac App Store, television APP Store, iBooks Store and Apple Music (collectively Internet Services). The Company sells its products through its retail stores, online stores and direct sales force through third-party cellular network carriers, wholesalers, retailers and value-added resellers. The Company sells a range of third-party Apple compatible products, including application software and accessories through its retail and online stores. The Company sells to consumers, small and mid-sized businesses and education, enterprise and government customers. iPhone is the Company s line of smartphones based on its iOS operating system. iPhone includes Siri, a voice activated intelligent assistant, and Apple Pay and touch ID on qualifying devices. The Company offers iPhone 7 and 7 Plus, featuring new camera systems, stereo speakers and water and dust resistance. The Company also sells iPhone SE, which has a four-inch Retina display. iPhone works with the iTunes Store, App Store, iBooks Store and Apple Music for purchasing, organizing and playing digital content and applications. iPad is the Company s line of multi-purpose tablets based on its iOS operating system. iPad includes iPad Pro, iPad Air and iPad mini. Mac is the Company s line of desktop and portable personal computers based on its macOS operating system. The Company s desktop computers include iMac, 21.5 inches iMac with Retina 4K display, 27 inches iMac with Retina 5K display, Mac Pro and Mac mini. The Company s portable computers include MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and MacBook Pro with Retina display. Apple TV connects to consumers televisions (TVs) and enables them to access digital content directly for streaming high definition video, playing music and games, and viewing photos. Content from Apple Music and other media services is also available on Apple TV. Apple TV allows streaming digital content from Mac and Windows personal computers through Home Share and from compatible Mac and iOS devices through AirPlay. The Company s Apple TV runs on its tvOS operating system and is based on applications built for the television. Additionally, the Apple TV remote features Siri, allowing users to search and access content with their voice. Apple Watch is a personal electronic device that combines the watchOS user interface and technologies created specifically for a smaller device, including the Digital Crown, a navigation tool that allows users to seamlessly scroll, zoom and navigate, and force touch, a technology that senses the difference between a tap and a press and allows users to access controls within applications. Apple Watch enables users to communicate in new ways from their wrist, track their health and fitness through activity and workout applications, and includes Siri and Apple Pay. The Company offers Apple Watch Series 2, featuring fitness and health capabilities. iPod is the Company s line of portable digital music and media players, which includes iPod touch, iPod nano and iPod shuffle. All iPods work with iTunes to purchase and synchronize content. iPod touch, based on the Company s iOS operating system, is a flash-memory-based iPod that works with the iTunes Store, App Store and iBooks Store for purchasing and playing digital content and applications. iOS is the Company s multi-touch operating system that serves as the foundation for iOS devices. Devices running iOS are compatible with both Mac and Windows personal computers and Apple iCloud services. The Company offers iOS 10, which introduces the ability for Siri to do more by working with applications, updates messages, includes redesigned maps, photos, Apple music and news applications, and the home applications, which provides a way to manage home automation products in one place. macOS is the Company s Mac operating system and is built on an open-source uniplexed information and computing system (UNIX) based foundation and provides an intuitive and integrated computer experience. macOS Sierra incorporates Siri and Apple Pay on the Mac, provides continuity and document access across Apple devices and includes the memories feature in photos. watchOS is the Company s operating system for Apple Watch. The Company s watchOS three provides ability to launch applications instantly, navigation with the new Dock and new fitness and health capabilities for Apple Watch, including the Breathe applications designed to promote exercises for relaxation and stress reduction. tvOS is the Company s operating system for Apple TV. The tvOS operating system is based on the Company s iOS platform and enables developers to create applications and games specifically for Apple TV and deliver them to customers through the Apple TV App Store. The tvOS incorporates new Siri capabilities that allow searching across more applications and services. The Company s applications software includes iLife, iWork and other software, including Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro X and FileMaker Pro. iLife is the Company s consumer-oriented digital lifestyle software applications suite included with all Mac computers and features iMovie, a digital video editing applications, and GarageBand, a music creation application that allows users to play, record and create music. iWork is the Company s integrated productivity suite included with all Mac computers and is designed to help users create, present and publish documents through Pages, presentations through Keynote and spreadsheets through Numbers. The Company also has multi-touch versions of iLife and iWork applications designed specifically for use on iOS devices, which are available as free downloads for all new iOS devices. The iTunes Store, available for iOS devices, Mac and Windows personal computers and Apple TV, allows customers to purchase and download music and TV shows, rent or purchase movies and download free podcasts. The App Store, available for iOS devices, allows customers to discover and download applications and purchase in-applications content. The Mac applications Store, available for Mac computers, allows customers to discover, download and install Mac applications. The TV App Store allows customers access to applications and games specifically for the Apple TV. The iBooks Store, available for iOS devices and Mac computers, features e-books from major and independent publishers. Apple Music offers users a listening experience with on-demand radio stations that evolve based on a user s play or download activity and a subscription-based Internet streaming service that also provides access to the applications music library. iCloud is the Company s cloud service, which stores music, photos, contacts, calendars, mail, documents and more, keeping them up-to-date and available across multiple iOS devices, Mac and Windows personal computers and Apple TV. iCloud services include iCloud Drive, iCloud Photo Library, Family Sharing, Find My iPhone, iPad or Mac, Find My Friends, Notes, iCloud Keychain and iCloud Backup for iOS devices. AppleCare offers a range of support options for the Company s customers. These include assistance that is built into software products, printed and electronic product manuals, online support including comprehensive product information, technical assistance, the AppleCare Protection Plan (APP) and the AppleCare Protection Plan (AC+). AC+ is a fee-based service offering additional coverage under some circumstances for instances of accidental damage in addition to the services offered by APP and is available in certain countries for iPhone, iPad, AppleCare Watch and iPod. Apple Pay is the Company s mobile payment service available in certain countries that offers a private way to pay. Apple Pay allows users to pay for purchases in stores accepting contactless payments and to pay for purchases within participating applications on qualifying devices. Apple Pay accepts credit and debit cards across major card networks and also supports reward programs and store-issued credit and debit cards. The Company sells a variety of Apple-branded and third-party Mac-compatible and iOS-compatible accessories, including Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, iPod, headphones, displays, storage devices, and various other connectivity and computing products and supplies. The Company offers AirPods, new wireless headphones that interact with Siri.”,
“incorporationState”: “”,
“latitudeAdditional”: “”,
“postcodeAdditional”: “”,
“faxNumberAdditional”: “”,
“longitudeAdditional”: “”,
“addressTypeAdditional”: “”,
“phoneNumberAdditional”: “”,
“addressLine1Additional”: “”,
“addressLine2Additional”: “”,
“addressLine3Additional”: “”,
“addressLine4Additional”: “”,
“jurisdictionAdditional”: “”,
“countryRegionAdditional”: “”,
“ISOCountryCodeAdditional”: “”
}
},
“TIPerceptionIndex”: {
“rank”: 22,
“score”: 71,
“status”: “low”,
“country”: “United States of America”,
“sourceDate”: “syndicated records accessed on November 10, 2021”
},
“clientInformation”: {
“cname”: “”,
“cContact”: “”,
“addressLine1”: “”,
“addressLine2”: “”
},
“originalParameters”: {
“Id”: “”,
“city”: “”,
“region”: “Northern America”,
“address”: “”,
“country”: “United States”,
“grcDepth”: “Entity and Aliases”,
“poeCheck”: “true”,
“searchTerm”: “Apple Inc”,
“exclusionFlags”: “”,
“nameInLocalAlphabet”: “False”
},
“entityComplianceHits”: [
{
“name”: “Apple Escrow, Inc.”,
“redFlags”: {
“dob”: “”,
“source”: “US-CDBO”,
“country”: “United States”,
“remarks”: “According to the U.S. California Department of Business Oversight; June 3, 2010:

Respondent Apple Escrow (“Apple Escrow”)is an escrow agent licensed by the California Corporations Commissioner (Commissioner or Complainant) pursuant to the Escrow Law of the State of California (California Financial Code Section 17000 et seq.). Apple Escrow had its principal place of business at 13585 Whittier Boulevard, Suite 103, Whittier, California 90605. The Commissioner also discovered during the special examination that Apple Escrow had failed to perform monthly bank reconciliations on the trust account since May 31, 2008 in violation of Financial Code section 17404 and California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 1732.2. On March 11, 2010, the Commissioner demanded that Apple Escrow provide a trust account bank reconciliation for the period ended February 28, 2010, however, Apple Escrow has failed to provide the bank reconciliation. A trust account reconciliation for the period ended February 28, 2010 prepared by the Commissioner based upon Apple Escrow’s month-end reports and trust bank statements disclosed a negative adjusted balance of $67,385.36 in the trust account. Apple Escrow’ unlawful business actions caused the Commissioner, on April 20, 2010, to issue a Demand For and Order Taking Possession of the Business and Property of Apple Escrow pursuant to Financial Code section 17621 and an Order Appointing Peter A. Davidson as Conservator pursuant to Financial Code section 17630. The orders were necessary in order to offer any possible protection to the escrow customers of Apple Escrow. It is hereby ordered that escrow agent’s license of Apple Escrow is revoked.

According to the U.S. California Department of Business Oversight; March 30, 2006:

Apple-escrow.com has engaged in the business of an escrow agent by advertising escrow services over the Internet at www.apple-escrow.com, from 2005 to the present. Apple-escrow.com has represented itself to be a licensed escrow agent by advertising that the company is Apple Escrow, Inc., located in Whittier, California, and that it holds Department of Corporations escrow agents’ license number 963-1201. In fact, the Department of Corporations issued escrow license number 963-1201 to Apple Escrow, in Whittier, California, on April 24, 1985. However, Apple-escrow.com is not a website of Apple Escrow. Apple-escrow.com has not been issued a license from the Commissioner authorizing it to conduct business as an escrow agent, as required by California Financial Code section 17200. Apple-escrow.com is not exempt fromthe licensing requirements of Section 17200. Apple-escrow.com has disseminated or causedto be disseminated false, misleading and/or deceptive statements or representations that it is licensed and refer to Apple-escrow.com’s affiliation with IES, when, in fact, Apple-escrow.comis not affiliated with IES in any way. Pursuant to California Financial Code section 17416, Apple-escrow.com is hereby ordered to desist and refrain from engaging in the business of receiving escrows for deposit or delivery without first obtaining a license from the Commissioner.”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“position”: “License revoked for engaging in unlawful business actions - June 3, 2010.”,
“entryType”: “Organization”,
“fuzzscore”: 72,
“touchdate”: “2018-04-20”,
“primaryname”: “”,
“subCategory”: “Disciplined”,
“complianceId”: 976301,
“elasticscore”: 16.213463,
“remarksClassification”: [
{
“remarks”: “According to the U.S. California Department of Business Oversight;
June 3, 2010:
Respondent Apple Escrow (“Apple Escrow”)is an escrow agent licensed by the California Corporations Commissioner (Commissioner or Complainant) pursuant to the Escrow Law of the State of California (California Financial Code Section 17000 et seq.). Apple Escrow had its principal place of business at 13585 Whittier Boulevard, Suite 103, Whittier, California 90605. The Commissioner also discovered during the special examination that Apple Escrow had failed to perform monthly bank reconciliations on the trust account since May 31, 2008 in violation of Financial Code section 17404 and California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 1732.2. On March 11, 2010, the Commissioner demanded that Apple Escrow provide a trust account bank reconciliation for the period ended February 28, 2010, however, Apple Escrow has failed to provide the bank reconciliation. A trust account reconciliation for the period ended February 28, 2010 prepared by the Commissioner based upon Apple Escrow’s month-end reports and trust bank statements disclosed a negative adjusted balance of $67,385.36 in the trust account. Apple Escrow’ unlawful business actions caused the Commissioner, on April 20, 2010, to issue a Demand For and Order Taking Possession of the Business and Property of Apple Escrow pursuant to Financial Code section 17621 and an Order Appointing Peter A. Davidson as Conservator pursuant to Financial Code section 17630. The orders were necessary in order to offer any possible protection to the escrow customers of Apple Escrow. It is hereby ordered that escrow agent’s license of Apple Escrow is revoked”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-04-20”,
“remarks_xid”: “976301_1”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to the U.S. California Department of Business Oversight;
March 30, 2006:
Apple-escrow.com has engaged in the business of an escrow agent by advertising escrow services over the Internet at www.apple-escrow.com, from 2005 to the present. Apple-escrow.com has represented itself to be a licensed escrow agent by advertising that the company is Apple Escrow, Inc., located in Whittier, California, and that it holds Department of Corporations escrow agents’ license number 963-1201. In fact, the Department of Corporations issued escrow license number 963-1201 to Apple Escrow, in Whittier, California, on April 24, 1985. However, Apple-escrow.com is not a website of Apple Escrow. Apple-escrow.com has not been issued a license from the Commissioner authorizing it to conduct business as an escrow agent, as required by California Financial Code section 17200. Apple-escrow.com is not exempt fromthe licensing requirements of Section 17200. Apple-escrow.com has disseminated or causedto be disseminated false, misleading and/or deceptive statements or representations that it is licensed and refer to Apple-escrow.com’s affiliation with IES, when, in fact, Apple-escrow.comis not affiliated with IES in any way. Pursuant to California Financial Code section 17416, Apple-escrow.com is hereby ordered to desist and refrain from engaging in the business of receiving escrows for deposit or delivery without first obtaining a license from the Commissioner.”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-04-20”,
“remarks_xid”: “976301_2”,
“subcategory”: “Disciplined”
}
]
},
“sourceDate”: “restricted-party database accessed on November 10, 2021”,
“deconflicted”: “Match”,
“originalTerm”: “APPLE INC.”
},
{
“name”: “Apple, Inc.”,
“redFlags”: {
“dob”: “”,
“source”: “US-FTC”,
“country”: “United States”,
“remarks”: “According to the france24.com; June 24, 2021:

The French court will examine on September 17, 2021, a case, in which the French Ministry of Finance and France Digitale (startups association) are accusing Apple of allegedly abusive terms of contracts for selling software on its App Store. The company can be fined up to EUR 2,000,000.

According to DE-Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office); June 21, 2021:

On June 21, 2021 the Bundeskartellamt initiated a proceeding against the technology company Apple based on the new competition law rules for large digital companies to determine whether the company is of paramount significance across markets. Based on this first proceeding, the Bundeskartellamt intends to assess in more detail specific practices of Apple in a possible further proceeding. In this regard, the authority has received various complaints relating to potentially anti-competitive practices. These include, among others, an association complaint from the advertising and media industry against Apple restricting user tracking with the introduction of its iOS 14.5 operating system, and a complaint against the exclusive pre-installation of the company s own applications as a possible type of self-preferencing prohibited under Section 19a of the German Competition Act. App developers also criticize the mandatory use of Apple s own in-app purchase system (IAP) and the 30 percent commission rate associated with this. In this context, the marketing restrictions for app developers in Apple s App Store are also addressed.

According to U.S. International Trade Commission; May 20, 2021:

Apple Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission. The investigation is based on a complaint filed by AliveCor, Inc., of Mountain View, CA, on April 20, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain wearable electronic devices with ECG functionality and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant.

According to Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation; April 27, 2021:

On April 27, 2021 the FAS of Russia fined Apple Inc. RUB 906,299,392 (more than USD 12,000,000) for violating antimonopoly legislation (abuse of dominant position).

According to US-Wisconsin Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General; US-Illinois Attorney General; US-Connecticut Attorney General; US-Arizona Attorney General; US-Alaska Department of Law; US-Iowa Attorney General; US-Kentucky Attorney General; US-Arkansas Attorney General; US-Michigan Attorney General; US-Vermont Attorney General; US-California Attorney General; US-North Carolina Attorney General; US-Virginia Attorney General; US-Florida Attorney General; US-Indiana Attorney General; US-Nevada Attorney General; US-District of Columbia Attorney General; US-Idaho Attorney General; US-South Carolina Attorney General; US-Pennsylvania Attorney General; US-Oregon Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General; US-Ohio Attorney General; US-Nebraska Attorney General; US-Montana Attorney General; US-Missouri Attorney General; US-Louisiana Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General; US-Iowa Attorney General, San Diego County Attorney General, US- Texas Attorney General, US-Utah Attorney General, US-Tennessee Attorney General and US-Minnesota Attorney General; November 18, 2020:

On November 18, 2020, Attorney General of over 30 states announced a USD 113,000,000 multistate settlement with Apple Inc. over Apple’s 2016 decision to throttle consumers’ iPhone speeds to address unexpected shutdowns in some iPhones. In addition to paying USD 113,000,000, Apple has agreed to injunctive terms, which include, Maintaining a prominent and accessible webpage on their website that provides clear and easily visible information to consumers about how the company manages battery performance issues, such as by throttling iPhone processing performance, Providing a clear and easily visible notice to all affected consumers when an iOS update materially affects iPhone processing performance, Providing information in the iPhone settings menu about the consumer s battery performance and maximum capacity as well as a notice of when a battery has experienced performance degradation of a significance that the consumer should service the battery and Training its consumer-facing staff regarding compliance with this injunction and the information that this injunction requires Apple to provide to consumers. Based on a multistate investigation, 34 attorneys generals allege that Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries, Apple concealed the issues from consumers. Apple’s concealment ultimately led to a software update in December, 2016 that reduced iPhone performance in an effort to keep the phones from unexpectedly shutting down.

According to investigation, attorneys generals allege that Apple’s concealment of the battery issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers’ iPhones led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers whose phone performance Apple had slowed. Under the settlement, Apple will pay the state accordingly: California will receive USD 24,600,000. North Carolina will receive USD 2,708,168.71. Arkansas will receive USD 4,295,115.09. Connecticut will receive USD 1,800,000. Wisconsin will receive USD 3,293,355.19. Virginia will receive USD 2,648,658.22. Florida will receive USD 5,088,588. Indiana will receive USD 4,890,219.99. Michigan will receive more than USD 2,600,000. Arizona will receive more than USD 5,000,000. Illinois will receive USD 3,422,294. Alaska will receive USD 1,270,000. Iowa will receive USD 1,517,959. Kentucky will receive USD 1,100,000. Vermont will receive USD 1,160,000. Nevada will receive USD 1,577,469.41. District of Columbia will receive USD 2,698,250.29. Idaho will receive USD 1,280,000. South Carolina will receive USD 1,815,511.36. Pennsylvania will receive USD 3,000,000. Oregon will receive USD 1756000. Ohio will receive USD 4,300,000. Nebraska will receive USD 1,339,427. Montana will receive USD 1,160,896. Missouri will receive USD 3,412,376.17. Louisiana will receive USD 3,293,355.19. Iowa will receive USD 1,517,959. San Diego will receive USD 4100000. Minnesota will receive USD 1,994,042.83. Texas will receive USD 7,500,000. Uthat will receive USD 1,500,000.

According to U.S. International Trade Commission; October 22, 2020:

Apple, Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain active matrix OLED display devices and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant.

According to Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato; September 07, 2020:

On September 07, 2020, Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato has launched an investigation against Apple (for the iCloud service) for alleged unfair commercial practices and violations of the Consumer Rights Directive and one for alleged clauses vexatious included in the contractual conditions.

According to Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation; August 31, 2020:

On August 10, 2020, the Federal Antimonopoly Service completed the consideration of the antimonopoly case against Apple Inc.

According to the report, in 2018 after the release of the iOS 12 operating system with the pre-installed Screen time app, Apple Inc. began to restrict the tools and capabilities of third-party parental control applications, as a result of which such applications lost some of the important functionality. The FAS Russia Commission concluded that Apple Inc. abused its dominant position in the market for distributing mobile apps on the iOS operating system. FAS issued a remedy to the company to eliminate the violation. The Authority required the company to provide competitive conditions for mobile applications developers.

According to U.S. International Trade Commission; August 19, 2020:

Apple, Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and laptop computers that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

According to Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato; July 22, 2020:

On July 14, 2020 the Authority begun an investigation pursuant to art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union towards companies of the Apple Inc. for antitrust violations. The investigations want to uncover whether Apple has put in place an agreement restricting competition to prohibit the sale of Apple and Beats branded products by electronics resellers not participating in the official Apple program.

According to EU-European Commission; June 16, 2020:

The European Commission has opened formal antitrust investigations to assess whether Apple s rules for app developers on the distribution of apps via the App Store violate EU competition rules. The investigations concern in particular the mandatory use of Apple s own proprietary in-app purchase system and restrictions on the ability of developers to inform iPhone and iPad users of alternative cheaper purchasing possibilities outside of apps. The investigations concern the application of these rules to all apps, which compete with Apple s own apps and services in the European Economic Area (EEA). The investigations follow-up on separate complaints by Spotify and by an e-book/audiobook distributor on the impact of the App Store rules on competition in music streaming and e-books/audiobooks. On 11 March 2019, music streaming provider and competitor of Apple Music, Spotify, filed a complaint about the two rules in Apple s license agreements with developers and the associated App Store Review Guidelines, and their impact on competition for music streaming services. On 5 March 2020, an e-book and audiobook distributor, also filed a complaint against Apple, which competes with the complainant through its Apple Books app. This complaint raises similar concerns to those under investigation in the Spotify case but with regard to the distribution of e-books and audiobooks.

According to French Autorite de la Concurrence; March 16, 2020:

On March 16, 2020, Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries, Apple France SARL, Apple Sales International, Apple Distribution International, Apple Europe Limited, Apple Operations Europe, Apple Operations International, were jointly fined EUR 1,101,969,952 by the Autorité de la concurrence for participation in anticompetitive agreements and practices. During the period from 2005 to March 2013, Apple and its wholesalers, Tech Data and Ingram Micro, agreed not to compete with each other in distribution of the non-iPhone products, and prevented other distributors from lowering prices on its products by implementing unfair product and customer allocation mechanisms.

According to U.S. International Trade Commission; March 16, 2020:

Apple Inc is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) for violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain capacitive touch-controlled mobile devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

According to French Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF); February 07, 2020:

On February 07, 2020, Apple group accepted to pay EUR 25,000,000 to the French authorities for misleading commercial practice, namely for failing to inform users that software updates to older iPhone models could slow down the device.

According to cgtn.com; January 30, 2020:

On January 29, 2020, Apple, Inc. Ordered to pay USD 1,100,000,000 for patent infringement. In a case filed in federal court in Los Angeles in 2016, the California Institute of Technology alleged that Broadcom Wi-Fi chips used in hundreds of millions of Apple iPhones infringed patents relating to data transmission technology. Broadcom is a major Apple supplier, deriving about a fifth of its sales from the iPhone maker in its fiscal 2019. Broadcom had signed deals to sell as much as USD 15,000,000,000 worth of chips to Apple.

According to U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) - Enforcement Information; November 25, 2019:

On November 25, 2019, Apple, Inc. has agreed to pay USD 466,912 in settlement agreement for violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations. Apple appears to have violated the FNKSR by dealing in the property or interests in property of SIS, d.o.o. , a Slovenian software company previously identified on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker. Specifically, from on or about February 24, 2015 to on or about May 9, 2017, Apple hosted, sold, and facilitated the transfer of SIS’s software applications and associated content. OFAC determined that Apple voluntarily disclosed the apparent violations, and that the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case.

According to Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation; August 08, 2019:

The FAS of Russia has instituted a case against APPLE INC on suspicion of abuse of dominant position. The case was opened upon the complaint of Kaspersky Laboratory (an antivirus software developer). The FAS has found that APPLE INC set unclear requirements to vendor’s software and rejected software versions that earlier were used in App Store. These actions contain elements of abusing dominance by Apple on iOS app distribution market.

According to Autorita Garante Concorrenze Mercato; October 24, 2018:

On September 25, 2018, the Autorita Garante Concorrenze Mercato fined Apple, Inc. with EUR 10,000,000 for antitrust violations.

According to the media, the company had released firmware updates for mobile phones that have caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance, thereby accelerating the process of replacing them.

According to AU-Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; June 19, 2018:

The Federal Court ordered Apple Inc (Apple US) to pay AUD 9,000,000 in penalties for making false or misleading representations to customers with faulty iPhones and iPads about their rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The ACCC took action against Apple US and Apple Pty Ltd (Apple Australia) following an investigation of complaints relating to ‘error 53’. This error disabled some iPhones and iPads after owners downloaded an update to Apple’s ‘iOS’ operating system. Apple US admitted it had represented to at least 275 Australian customers affected by error 53 that they were no longer eligible for a remedy if their device had been repaired by a third party. These representations were made from February, 2015 to February, 2016 on Apple US’ website, by Apple Australia’s staff in-store and on its customer service phone calls. After the ACCC notified Apple about its investigation, Apple implemented an outreach program to compensate individual consumers whose devices were made inoperable by error 53. This outreach program was extended to approximately 5,000 consumers. A concern addressed by this undertaking is that Apple was allegedly providing refurbished goods as replacements, after supplying a good which suffered a major failure. Apple has committed to provide new replacements in those circumstances if the consumer requests one.

According to Hungarian Competition Commission; April 18, 2018:

On April 18, 2018 the Hungarian Competition Commission fined Apple Inc. to HUF 100.000.000 for unfair commercial practices.

According to the decree, Apple Inc. didn t publish important information about the iOS 9 operating system, which could have caused extra expenses for the customers.

According to reuters.com; January 31, 2018:

The U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating whether Apple Inc violated securities laws concerning its disclosures that it slowed older iPhones with flagging batteries. The government has requested information from the company. Apple admitted in December that iPhone software could slow down some phones with battery problems. Aging lithium batteries deliver power unevenly, which can cause iPhones to shut down unexpectedly to protect the delicate circuits inside. The company tricked consumers into believing their phones were close to the end of their life cycle, forcing them to buy new phones or pay up to USD 80 for a replacement battery. Government agencies in countries ranging from Brazil to France and Italy to South Korea are also investigating Apple following complaints. Criminal complaint accused Apple of destruction of property and fraud.

According to AU-Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; April 06, 2017:

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Apple Pty Limited and its US-based parent company, Apple Inc., (together, Apple) alleging that Apple made false, misleading, or deceptive representations about consumers’ rights under the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC commenced an investigation following reports relating to ‘error 53’ – an error which disabled some consumers’ iPads or iPhones after downloading an update to Apple’s ‘iOS’ operating system. Many consumers who experienced error 53 had previously had their Apple device repaired by a third party; usually replacing a cracked screen. The ACCC investigation revealed that Apple appears to have routinely refused to look at or service consumers’ defective devices if a consumer had previously had the device repaired by a third party repairer, even where that repair was unrelated to the fault. Under the Australian Consumer Law, there are a number of “consumer guarantees” regarding the quality, suitability for purpose and other characteristics of goods and services, and consumers are entitled to certain remedies at no cost where goods and services do not comply with the consumer guarantees. The ACCC alleges Apple represented to consumers with faulty products that they were not entitled to a free remedy if their Apple device had previously been repaired by third party, “unauthorised repairers”. However, having a component of the Apple device serviced, repaired, or replaced by someone other than Apple cannot, by itself, extinguish the consumer’s right to a remedy for non-compliance with the consumer guarantees.

According to CA-Competition Tribunal of Canada; January 19, 2017:

Commissioner of Competition (the “Commissioner”) commenced an inquiry relating to certain alleged anticompetitive conduct in the markets for E-books in Canada. Commissioner has concluded that: in or about January 2010, Apple Inc. and certain publishers, whose identities are known to the Commissioner and who are competitors in the market for E-books (collectively, “the Publishers”), entered into an arrangement, within the meaning of s. 90.1 of the Act, in the United States in relation to the sale of E-books at retail in the United States and Canada (defined as the “Arrangement”); Apple Inc. is a party to the Arrangement, and Apple Canada Inc. is the Canadian Subsidiary of a party to the Arrangement and implemented the Arrangement in Canada; the Arrangement provided that the Publishers, either directly or through their Affiliates or Subsidiaries, would enter into agreements with E-book Retailers in Canada which included provisions that restricted the ability of E-book Retailers to discount the Retail Price for E-books. Apple shall not, for a period of three years from the date of the registration of this Agreement, enter into any agreement with a Major E-book Publisher that contains a Price MFN with respect to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada. Apple shall not, for a period of three years from the date of the registration of this Agreement, enter into any agreement with a Major E-book Publisher that contains a Price MFN with respect to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada. by entering into an amendment to the agreement, effective no later than fifty (50) days after the registration of this Agreement, either (i) making the agreement inapplicable to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada or (ii) removing the Price MFN with respect to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada; or by notifying the Major E-book Publisher within twenty-five (25) days of the date of registration of this Agreement that during the period of three years from the date of registration of this Agreement, Apple will not enforce any Price MFN with respect to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada in any such agreement between Apple and the Major E-book Publisher.

According to EU-European Commission; August 30, 2016:

The European Commission has adopted a decision that Apple s tax benefits in Ireland are illegal. Two tax rulings granted by Ireland have artificially reduced Apple s tax burden for over two decades, in breach of EU state aid rules. Apple now has to repay the benefits worth up to Euros 13,000,000,000, plus interest. The decision concerns two companies in the Apple group - Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Both are incorporated in Ireland and have been set up by Apple to record profits there. Their ultimate parent is Apple Inc. in the US.

According to US-Iowa Attorney General, US-Kansas Attorney General, US-Missouri Attorney General, US-Virginia Attorney General, US-Utah Attorney General, US-Idaho Attorney General, US-Nebraska Attorney General, US-Arkansas Attorney General, US-District of Columbia Attorney General, US-New York Attorney General, US-Ohio Attorney General, US-Illinois Attorney General, US-Massachusetts Attorney General, US-Michigan Attorney General, US-Colorado Attorney General, US-New Mexico Attorney General, US-Tennessee Attorney General, US- Texas Attorney General, US-Connecticut Attorney General, US-Texas Attorney General and US-Pennsylvania Attorney General; June 2016:

Apple, Inc., has reached multistate settlement of USD 400,000,000 to resolve claims that Apple, Inc conspired with retailers to raise the price of e-books from 2010 to 2012. All 33 states have filed Lawsuit against Apple, Inc. for conspiring to artificially inflate E-book prices with five major publishers. As per the settlement the state consumers will recieve the following; Kansas consumers will receive USD 3,800,000. Utah consumers will receive USD 4,000,000. Texas consumers will receive USD 33,000,000. Iowa consumers will receive USD 5,500,000. New Mexico consumers will receive USD 2,700,000. Tennessee consumers will receive USD 8,500,000. Pennsylvania consumers will receive USD 16,800,000. Nebraska consumers will receive USD 2,500,000. Arkansas consumers will receive USD 6,930,000. Connecticut consumers will receive USD 4,800,000. Ohio consumers will receive USD 15,000,000. Illinois consumers will receive USD 19,000,000. Idaho consumers will receive USD 2,100,000. Massachusetts consumers will receive USD 9,000,000. Michigan consumers will receive USD 10,100,000. Colorado consumers will receive USD 7,000,000. Columbia consumers will receive USD 880,000. New York will receive USD 25,900,000.

According to US-Kansas Attorney General, US-Missouri Attorney General, US-Arizona Attorney General, US-Nebraska Attorney General, US-Idaho Attorney General, US-Alabama Attorney General, US-Texas Attorney General; March 2016:

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Apple’s petition for certiorari in United States for making final lower court decisions that Apple orchestrated a price-fixing conspiracy with five major e-book publishers and substantially raised e-book prices. The Supreme Court’s action triggers Apple’s obligation to pay USD 400,000,000 to e-book purchasers under Apple’s July 2014 agreement to settle damages actions brought by the attorneys general of 33 states and territories. Arizona will receive USD 8,600,000. Nebraska will receive USD 20,000,000. Idaho will receive USD 2,000,000 Alabama will receive USD 20,000,000 Texas will receive USD 20,000,000

According to ibtimes.com; January 15, 2016:

European regulators have accused Apple of using its Irish subsidiaries to pay lower taxes on its overseas revenue. The iPhone maker could owe more than USD 8,000,000,000 in back taxes if a European Commission investigation rules against it and its tax practices within the economic region. The issue at the center of it all is Apple’s subsidiaries in Ireland, which regulators accuse the company of using to reduce its tax bill on overseas revenue significantly. The European Commission opened its investigation into the company’s tax arrangement in Ireland in 2014. Apple listed the European Commission investigation as one of the potential risk factors for the company in its annual regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October.

According to independent.co.uk; December 31, 2015:

Apple has agreed a ceasefire with Italian authorities over a tax fraud inquiry which could pave the way for a similar resolution of a high-level European Union investigation into the California company’s multinational tax strategies. Apple will pay EUR 318,000,000 ( GBP 234,000,000) to settle allegations that it dodged nearly EUR 1,000,000,000 in tax between 2008 and 2013. The iPhone maker was accused of diverting sales made at Apple stores in Italy through an Irish subsidiary called Apple Sales International, which paid a lower rate of tax. Ireland, where Apple has its European headquarters in Cork, has a corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent, compared with Italy’s 27.5 per cent. Apple allegedly under-declared earnings that would have yielded EUR 879,000,000 in taxes – about three times the amount it has agreed to pay.

According to US-Wisconsin Attorney General, US-Virginia Attorney General; US-West Virginia Attorney General, US-Utah Attorney General, US-New York Attorney General and US-Connecticut Attorney General; July 2014:

On July 16, 2014, Apple, Inc. has reached a settlement agreement for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy in the market for e-books. The Apple, Inc to pay USD 400,000,000 in settlement to resolve a price-fixing lawsuit. West Virginia will receive USD 1,700,000, New York will receive USD 20,000,000 and Virginia will receive USD 10,500,000.

According to U.S. Federal Trade Commission; March 27, 2014:

Final order was issued against Apple Inc to resolve FTC allegations that unfairly charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without their parents’ consent. Under the settlement, by March 31, 2014, Apple must change its billing practices to ensure that it has obtained express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for in-app purchases. Apple was also ordered to full refunds, totaling a minimum of USD 32,500,000, to consumers who were billed for in-app purchases that were incurred by children and were either accidental or not authorized by the consumer. By April 15, 2014, Apple must notify all consumers charged for in-app purchases with instructions on how to obtain a refund for unauthorized purchases by kids.

According to U.S. Federal Trade Commission; January 15, 2014:

Complaint was filed against Apple Inc and the company agreed to provide full refunds to consumers, paying a minimum of USD 32,500,000. Apple also will be required to change its billing practices to ensure that it has obtained express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for items sold in mobile apps. The complaint alleges that Apple does not inform account holders that entering their password will open a 15-minute window in which children can incur unlimited charges with no further action from the account holder. In addition, according to the complaint, Apple has often presented a screen with a prompt for a parent to enter his or her password in a kids’ app without explaining to the account holder that password entry would finalize any purchase at all. In its complaint the FTC also notes that Apple received at least tens of thousands of complaints about unauthorized in-app purchases by children.

According to tg24.sky.it; November 13, 2013:

Italian authorities placed Apple under investigation for alleged tax evasion. Milan prosecutors are investigating the computer hardware giant in relation to a suspected tax evasion of 1,590,000,000 euros. Apple is believed to have underestimated its taxable income from 2010 to 2011.

According to US-Illinois Attorney General, US-New York Attorney General, US-Connecticut Attorney General, US-Ohio Attorney General; July 10, 2013:

On July 10, 2013, Apple Inc. violated antitrust laws by conspiring with five of the largest U.S. book publishers to fix the prices of e-books.

According to jurist.org; July 02, 2012:

The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) announced that it may shut down Apple operations in Italy for 30 days and fine the company up to 300,000 euros (USD 377,500) for unfair commercial practices. The authority claims that Apple misled customers by not advising them of their legal right to a free two-year warranty, required under Italian law. Instead, Apple marketed its AppleCare Protection Plan, a paid service. Apple was already fined 900,000 euros (USD 1,100,000) in December 2011 for unfair commercial practices after an investigation that revealed the same violations related to the free two-year service. However, since Apple had failed to comply with the antitrust ruling, AGCM decided to take further steps to force the US-based company to change its policy. In June 2012, Apple was fined 2.25 Australian dollars (USD 2,290,000) by an Australian federal court for its misleading marketing and advertising of iPad tablets.

According to US-Iowa Attorney General, US-Maryland Attorney General, US-Massachusetts Attorney General, US-Vermont Attorney General, US-Colorado Attorney General and the Department of Law, US-Illinois Attorney General; April 2012:

On April 11, 2012, Lawsuit filed against Apple Inc. and others for conspiring to raise prices for e-books. The lawsuit alleges that Apple to drive up the price of e-books beginning in 2010, when Apple unveiled its first e-book reader, the iPad. For years, retailers sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers – not publishers – set the price of e-books. However, the investigation revealed that Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at USD 12.99 and USD 14.99.”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“position”: “Suspected of breaching the German Competition Act - June 21, 2021.”,
“entryType”: “Organization”,
“fuzzscore”: 100,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“primaryname”: “”,
“subCategory”: “Price Manipulation”,
“complianceId”: 2562977,
“elasticscore”: 18.873838,
“remarksClassification”: [
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Kansas Attorney General, US-Missouri Attorney General, US-Arizona Attorney General, US-Nebraska Attorney General, US-Idaho Attorney General, US-Alabama Attorney General, US-Texas Attorney General;
March 2016:
The U.S. Supreme Court denied Apple’s petition for certiorari in United States for making final lower court decisions that Apple orchestrated a price-fixing conspiracy with five major e-book publishers and substantially raised e-book prices. The Supreme Court’s action triggers Apple’s obligation to pay USD 400,000,000 to e-book purchasers under Apple’s July 2014 agreement to settle damages actions brought by the attorneys general of 33 states and territories. Arizona will receive USD 8,600,000. Nebraska will receive USD 20,000,000. Idaho will receive USD 2,000,000 Alabama will receive USD 20,000,000 Texas will receive USD 20,000,000 According to ibtimes.com;
January 15, 2016:
European regulators have accused Apple of using its Irish subsidiaries to pay lower taxes on its overseas revenue. The iPhone maker could owe more than USD 8,000,000,000 in back taxes if a European Commission investigation rules against it and its tax practices within the economic region. The issue at the center of it all is Apple’s subsidiaries in Ireland, which regulators accuse the company of using to reduce its tax bill on overseas revenue significantly. The European Commission opened its investigation into the company’s tax arrangement in Ireland in 2014. Apple listed the European Commission investigation as one of the potential risk factors for the company in its annual regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_35”,
“subcategory”: “Conspiracy”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to AU-Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;
April 06, 2017:
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Apple Pty Limited and its US-based parent company, Apple Inc., (together, Apple) alleging that Apple made false, misleading, or deceptive representations about consumers’ rights under the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC commenced an investigation following reports relating to ‘error 53’ – an error which disabled some consumers’ iPads or iPhones after downloading an update to Apple’s ‘iOS’ operating system. Many consumers who experienced error 53 had previously had their Apple device repaired by a third party;
usually replacing a cracked screen. The ACCC investigation revealed that Apple appears to have routinely refused to look at or service consumers’ defective devices if a consumer had previously had the device repaired by a third party repairer, even where that repair was unrelated to the fault. Under the Australian Consumer Law, there are a number of “consumer guarantees” regarding the quality, suitability for purpose and other characteristics of goods and services, and consumers are entitled to certain remedies at no cost where goods and services do not comply with the consumer guarantees. The ACCC alleges Apple represented to consumers with faulty products that they were not entitled to a free remedy if their Apple device had previously been repaired by third party, “unauthorised repairers”. However, having a component of the Apple device serviced, repaired, or replaced by someone other than Apple cannot, by itself, extinguish the consumer’s right to a remedy for non-compliance with the consumer guarantees”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_1”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to AU-Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;
April 06, 2017:
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Apple Pty Limited and its US-based parent company, Apple Inc., (together, Apple) alleging that Apple made false, misleading, or deceptive representations about consumers’ rights under the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC commenced an investigation following reports relating to ‘error 53’ – an error which disabled some consumers’ iPads or iPhones after downloading an update to Apple’s ‘iOS’ operating system. Many consumers who experienced error 53 had previously had their Apple device repaired by a third party;
usually replacing a cracked screen. The ACCC investigation revealed that Apple appears to have routinely refused to look at or service consumers’ defective devices if a consumer had previously had the device repaired by a third party repairer, even where that repair was unrelated to the fault. Under the Australian Consumer Law, there are a number of “consumer guarantees” regarding the quality, suitability for purpose and other characteristics of goods and services, and consumers are entitled to certain remedies at no cost where goods and services do not comply with the consumer guarantees. The ACCC alleges Apple represented to consumers with faulty products that they were not entitled to a free remedy if their Apple device had previously been repaired by third party, “unauthorised repairers”. However, having a component of the Apple device serviced, repaired, or replaced by someone other than Apple cannot, by itself, extinguish the consumer’s right to a remedy for non-compliance with the consumer guarantees”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_1”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to AU-Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;
June 19, 2018:
The Federal Court ordered Apple Inc (Apple US) to pay AUD 9,000,000 in penalties for making false or misleading representations to customers with faulty iPhones and iPads about their rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The ACCC took action against Apple US and Apple Pty Ltd (Apple Australia) following an investigation of complaints relating to ‘error 53’. This error disabled some iPhones and iPads after owners downloaded an update to Apple’s ‘iOS’ operating system. Apple US admitted it had represented to at least 275 Australian customers affected by error 53 that they were no longer eligible for a remedy if their device had been repaired by a third party. These representations were made from February, 2015 to February, 2016 on Apple US’ website, by Apple Australia’s staff in-store and on its customer service phone calls. After the ACCC notified Apple about its investigation, Apple implemented an outreach program to compensate individual consumers whose devices were made inoperable by error 53. This outreach program was extended to approximately 5,000 consumers. A concern addressed by this undertaking is that Apple was allegedly providing refurbished goods as replacements, after supplying a good which suffered a major failure. Apple has committed to provide new replacements in those circumstances if the consumer requests one”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_2”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to AU-Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;
June 19, 2018:
The Federal Court ordered Apple Inc (Apple US) to pay AUD 9,000,000 in penalties for making false or misleading representations to customers with faulty iPhones and iPads about their rights under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The ACCC took action against Apple US and Apple Pty Ltd (Apple Australia) following an investigation of complaints relating to ‘error 53’. This error disabled some iPhones and iPads after owners downloaded an update to Apple’s ‘iOS’ operating system. Apple US admitted it had represented to at least 275 Australian customers affected by error 53 that they were no longer eligible for a remedy if their device had been repaired by a third party. These representations were made from February, 2015 to February, 2016 on Apple US’ website, by Apple Australia’s staff in-store and on its customer service phone calls. After the ACCC notified Apple about its investigation, Apple implemented an outreach program to compensate individual consumers whose devices were made inoperable by error 53. This outreach program was extended to approximately 5,000 consumers. A concern addressed by this undertaking is that Apple was allegedly providing refurbished goods as replacements, after supplying a good which suffered a major failure. Apple has committed to provide new replacements in those circumstances if the consumer requests one”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_2”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Autorita Garante Concorrenze Mercato;
October 24, 2018:
On September 25, 2018, the Autorita Garante Concorrenze Mercato fined Apple, Inc. with EUR 10,000,000 for antitrust violations”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_3”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato;
July 22, 2020:
On July 14, 2020 the Authority begun an investigation pursuant to art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union towards companies of the Apple Inc. for antitrust violations. The investigations want to uncover whether Apple has put in place an agreement restricting competition to prohibit the sale of Apple and Beats branded products by electronics resellers not participating in the official Apple program”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_4”,
“subcategory”: “Antitrust Violations”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato;
July 22, 2020:
On July 14, 2020 the Authority begun an investigation pursuant to art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union towards companies of the Apple Inc. for antitrust violations. The investigations want to uncover whether Apple has put in place an agreement restricting competition to prohibit the sale of Apple and Beats branded products by electronics resellers not participating in the official Apple program”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_4”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato;
July 22, 2020:
On July 14, 2020 the Authority begun an investigation pursuant to art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union towards companies of the Apple Inc. for antitrust violations. The investigations want to uncover whether Apple has put in place an agreement restricting competition to prohibit the sale of Apple and Beats branded products by electronics resellers not participating in the official Apple program”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_4”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato;
September 07, 2020:
On September 07, 2020, Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato has launched an investigation against Apple (for the iCloud service) for alleged unfair commercial practices and violations of the Consumer Rights Directive and one for alleged clauses vexatious included in the contractual conditions”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_5”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato;
September 07, 2020:
On September 07, 2020, Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato has launched an investigation against Apple (for the iCloud service) for alleged unfair commercial practices and violations of the Consumer Rights Directive and one for alleged clauses vexatious included in the contractual conditions”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_5”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato;
September 07, 2020:
On September 07, 2020, Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato has launched an investigation against Apple (for the iCloud service) for alleged unfair commercial practices and violations of the Consumer Rights Directive and one for alleged clauses vexatious included in the contractual conditions”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_5”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to CA-Competition Tribunal of Canada;
January 19, 2017:
Commissioner of Competition (the “Commissioner”) commenced an inquiry relating to certain alleged anticompetitive conduct in the markets for E-books in Canada. Commissioner has concluded that:
in or about January 2010, Apple Inc. and certain publishers, whose identities are known to the Commissioner and who are competitors in the market for E-books (collectively, “the Publishers”), entered into an arrangement, within the meaning of s. 90.1 of the Act, in the United States in relation to the sale of E-books at retail in the United States and Canada (defined as the “Arrangement”);
Apple Inc. is a party to the Arrangement, and Apple Canada Inc. is the Canadian Subsidiary of a party to the Arrangement and implemented the Arrangement in Canada;
the Arrangement provided that the Publishers, either directly or through their Affiliates or Subsidiaries, would enter into agreements with E-book Retailers in Canada which included provisions that restricted the ability of E-book Retailers to discount the Retail Price for E-books. Apple shall not, for a period of three years from the date of the registration of this Agreement, enter into any agreement with a Major E-book Publisher that contains a Price MFN with respect to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada. Apple shall not, for a period of three years from the date of the registration of this Agreement, enter into any agreement with a Major E-book Publisher that contains a Price MFN with respect to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada. by entering into an amendment to the agreement, effective no later than fifty (50) days after the registration of this Agreement, either (i) making the agreement inapplicable to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada or (ii) removing the Price MFN with respect to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada;
or by notifying the Major E-book Publisher within twenty-five (25) days of the date of registration of this Agreement that during the period of three years from the date of registration of this Agreement, Apple will not enforce any Price MFN with respect to the Sale of E-books to consumers in Canada in any such agreement between Apple and the Major E-book Publisher”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_6”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Hungarian Competition Commission;
April 18, 2018:
On April 18, 2018 the Hungarian Competition Commission fined Apple Inc. to HUF 100.000.000 for unfair commercial practices”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_16”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to cgtn.com;
January 30, 2020:
On January 29, 2020, Apple, Inc. Ordered to pay USD 1,100,000,000 for patent infringement. In a case filed in federal court in Los Angeles in 2016, the California Institute of Technology alleged that Broadcom Wi-Fi chips used in hundreds of millions of Apple iPhones infringed patents relating to data transmission technology. Broadcom is a major Apple supplier, deriving about a fifth of its sales from the iPhone maker in its fiscal 2019. Broadcom had signed deals to sell as much as USD 15,000,000,000 worth of chips to Apple”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_7”,
“subcategory”: “Patent Infringement”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to cgtn.com;
January 30, 2020:
On January 29, 2020, Apple, Inc. Ordered to pay USD 1,100,000,000 for patent infringement. In a case filed in federal court in Los Angeles in 2016, the California Institute of Technology alleged that Broadcom Wi-Fi chips used in hundreds of millions of Apple iPhones infringed patents relating to data transmission technology. Broadcom is a major Apple supplier, deriving about a fifth of its sales from the iPhone maker in its fiscal 2019. Broadcom had signed deals to sell as much as USD 15,000,000,000 worth of chips to Apple”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_7”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to DE-Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office);
June 21, 2021:
On June 21, 2021 the Bundeskartellamt initiated a proceeding against the technology company Apple based on the new competition law rules for large digital companies to determine whether the company is of paramount significance across markets. Based on this first proceeding, the Bundeskartellamt intends to assess in more detail specific practices of Apple in a possible further proceeding. In this regard, the authority has received various complaints relating to potentially anti-competitive practices. These include, among others, an association complaint from the advertising and media industry against Apple restricting user tracking with the introduction of its iOS 14.5 operating system, and a complaint against the exclusive pre-installation of the company s own applications as a possible type of self-preferencing prohibited under Section 19a of the German Competition Act. App developers also criticize the mandatory use of Apple s own in-app purchase system (IAP) and the 30 percent commission rate associated with this. In this context, the marketing restrictions for app developers in Apple s App Store are also addressed”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_8”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to EU-European Commission;
August 30, 2016:
The European Commission has adopted a decision that Apple s tax benefits in Ireland are illegal. Two tax rulings granted by Ireland have artificially reduced Apple s tax burden for over two decades, in breach of EU state aid rules. Apple now has to repay the benefits worth up to Euros 13,000,000,000, plus interest. The decision concerns two companies in the Apple group - Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Both are incorporated in Ireland and have been set up by Apple to record profits there. Their ultimate parent is Apple Inc. in the US”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_9”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to EU-European Commission;
June 16, 2020:
The European Commission has opened formal antitrust investigations to assess whether Apple s rules for app developers on the distribution of apps via the App Store violate EU competition rules. The investigations concern in particular the mandatory use of Apple s own proprietary in-app purchase system and restrictions on the ability of developers to inform iPhone and iPad users of alternative cheaper purchasing possibilities outside of apps. The investigations concern the application of these rules to all apps, which compete with Apple s own apps and services in the European Economic Area (EEA). The investigations follow-up on separate complaints by Spotify and by an e-book/audiobook distributor on the impact of the App Store rules on competition in music streaming and e-books/audiobooks. On 11 March 2019, music streaming provider and competitor of Apple Music, Spotify, filed a complaint about the two rules in Apple s license agreements with developers and the associated App Store Review Guidelines, and their impact on competition for music streaming services. On 5 March 2020, an e-book and audiobook distributor, also filed a complaint against Apple, which competes with the complainant through its Apple Books app. This complaint raises similar concerns to those under investigation in the Spotify case but with regard to the distribution of e-books and audiobooks”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_10”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to EU-European Commission;
June 16, 2020:
The European Commission has opened formal antitrust investigations to assess whether Apple s rules for app developers on the distribution of apps via the App Store violate EU competition rules. The investigations concern in particular the mandatory use of Apple s own proprietary in-app purchase system and restrictions on the ability of developers to inform iPhone and iPad users of alternative cheaper purchasing possibilities outside of apps. The investigations concern the application of these rules to all apps, which compete with Apple s own apps and services in the European Economic Area (EEA). The investigations follow-up on separate complaints by Spotify and by an e-book/audiobook distributor on the impact of the App Store rules on competition in music streaming and e-books/audiobooks. On 11 March 2019, music streaming provider and competitor of Apple Music, Spotify, filed a complaint about the two rules in Apple s license agreements with developers and the associated App Store Review Guidelines, and their impact on competition for music streaming services. On 5 March 2020, an e-book and audiobook distributor, also filed a complaint against Apple, which competes with the complainant through its Apple Books app. This complaint raises similar concerns to those under investigation in the Spotify case but with regard to the distribution of e-books and audiobooks”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_10”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation;
April 27, 2021:
On April 27, 2021 the FAS of Russia fined Apple Inc. RUB 906,299,392 (more than USD 12,000,000) for violating antimonopoly legislation (abuse of dominant position)”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_11”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation;
August 08, 2019:
The FAS of Russia has instituted a case against APPLE INC on suspicion of abuse of dominant position. The case was opened upon the complaint of Kaspersky Laboratory (an antivirus software developer). The FAS has found that APPLE INC set unclear requirements to vendor’s software and rejected software versions that earlier were used in App Store. These actions contain elements of abusing dominance by Apple on iOS app distribution market”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_12”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to French Autorite de la Concurrence;
March 16, 2020:
On March 16, 2020, Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries, Apple France SARL, Apple Sales International, Apple Distribution International, Apple Europe Limited, Apple Operations Europe, Apple Operations International, were jointly fined EUR 1,101,969,952 by the Autorité de la concurrence for participation in anticompetitive agreements and practices. During the period from 2005 to March 2013, Apple and its wholesalers, Tech Data and Ingram Micro, agreed not to compete with each other in distribution of the non-iPhone products, and prevented other distributors from lowering prices on its products by implementing unfair product and customer allocation mechanisms”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_14”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to independent.co.uk;
December 31, 2015:
Apple has agreed a ceasefire with Italian authorities over a tax fraud inquiry which could pave the way for a similar resolution of a high-level European Union investigation into the California company’s multinational tax strategies. Apple will pay EUR 318,000,000 ( GBP 234,000,000) to settle allegations that it dodged nearly EUR 1,000,000,000 in tax between 2008 and 2013. The iPhone maker was accused of diverting sales made at Apple stores in Italy through an Irish subsidiary called Apple Sales International, which paid a lower rate of tax. Ireland, where Apple has its European headquarters in Cork, has a corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent, compared with Italy’s 27.5 per cent. Apple allegedly under-declared earnings that would have yielded EUR 879,000,000 in taxes – about three times the amount it has agreed to pay”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_17”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to independent.co.uk;
December 31, 2015:
Apple has agreed a ceasefire with Italian authorities over a tax fraud inquiry which could pave the way for a similar resolution of a high-level European Union investigation into the California company’s multinational tax strategies. Apple will pay EUR 318,000,000 ( GBP 234,000,000) to settle allegations that it dodged nearly EUR 1,000,000,000 in tax between 2008 and 2013. The iPhone maker was accused of diverting sales made at Apple stores in Italy through an Irish subsidiary called Apple Sales International, which paid a lower rate of tax. Ireland, where Apple has its European headquarters in Cork, has a corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent, compared with Italy’s 27.5 per cent. Apple allegedly under-declared earnings that would have yielded EUR 879,000,000 in taxes – about three times the amount it has agreed to pay”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_17”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to independent.co.uk;
December 31, 2015:
Apple has agreed a ceasefire with Italian authorities over a tax fraud inquiry which could pave the way for a similar resolution of a high-level European Union investigation into the California company’s multinational tax strategies. Apple will pay EUR 318,000,000 ( GBP 234,000,000) to settle allegations that it dodged nearly EUR 1,000,000,000 in tax between 2008 and 2013. The iPhone maker was accused of diverting sales made at Apple stores in Italy through an Irish subsidiary called Apple Sales International, which paid a lower rate of tax. Ireland, where Apple has its European headquarters in Cork, has a corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent, compared with Italy’s 27.5 per cent. Apple allegedly under-declared earnings that would have yielded EUR 879,000,000 in taxes – about three times the amount it has agreed to pay”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_17”,
“subcategory”: “Fraud”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to independent.co.uk;
December 31, 2015:
Apple has agreed a ceasefire with Italian authorities over a tax fraud inquiry which could pave the way for a similar resolution of a high-level European Union investigation into the California company’s multinational tax strategies. Apple will pay EUR 318,000,000 ( GBP 234,000,000) to settle allegations that it dodged nearly EUR 1,000,000,000 in tax between 2008 and 2013. The iPhone maker was accused of diverting sales made at Apple stores in Italy through an Irish subsidiary called Apple Sales International, which paid a lower rate of tax. Ireland, where Apple has its European headquarters in Cork, has a corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent, compared with Italy’s 27.5 per cent. Apple allegedly under-declared earnings that would have yielded EUR 879,000,000 in taxes – about three times the amount it has agreed to pay”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_17”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to investigation, attorneys generals allege that Apple’s concealment of the battery issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers’ iPhones led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers whose phone performance Apple had slowed. Under the settlement, Apple will pay the state accordingly:
California will receive USD 24,600,000. North Carolina will receive USD 2,708,168.71. Arkansas will receive USD 4,295,115.09. Connecticut will receive USD 1,800,000. Wisconsin will receive USD 3,293,355.19. Virginia will receive USD 2,648,658.22. Florida will receive USD 5,088,588. Indiana will receive USD 4,890,219.99. Michigan will receive more than USD 2,600,000. Arizona will receive more than USD 5,000,000. Illinois will receive USD 3,422,294. Alaska will receive USD 1,270,000. Iowa will receive USD 1,517,959. Kentucky will receive USD 1,100,000. Vermont will receive USD 1,160,000. Nevada will receive USD 1,577,469.41. District of Columbia will receive USD 2,698,250.29. Idaho will receive USD 1,280,000. South Carolina will receive USD 1,815,511.36. Pennsylvania will receive USD 3,000,000. Oregon will receive USD 1756000. Ohio will receive USD 4,300,000. Nebraska will receive USD 1,339,427. Montana will receive USD 1,160,896. Missouri will receive USD 3,412,376.17. Louisiana will receive USD 3,293,355.19. Iowa will receive USD 1,517,959. San Diego will receive USD 4100000. Minnesota will receive USD 1,994,042.83. Texas will receive USD 7,500,000. Uthat will receive USD 1,500,000”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_18”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to investigation, attorneys generals allege that Apple’s concealment of the battery issues and decision to throttle the performance of consumers’ iPhones led to Apple profiting from selling additional iPhones to consumers whose phone performance Apple had slowed. Under the settlement, Apple will pay the state accordingly:
California will receive USD 24,600,000. North Carolina will receive USD 2,708,168.71. Arkansas will receive USD 4,295,115.09. Connecticut will receive USD 1,800,000. Wisconsin will receive USD 3,293,355.19. Virginia will receive USD 2,648,658.22. Florida will receive USD 5,088,588. Indiana will receive USD 4,890,219.99. Michigan will receive more than USD 2,600,000. Arizona will receive more than USD 5,000,000. Illinois will receive USD 3,422,294. Alaska will receive USD 1,270,000. Iowa will receive USD 1,517,959. Kentucky will receive USD 1,100,000. Vermont will receive USD 1,160,000. Nevada will receive USD 1,577,469.41. District of Columbia will receive USD 2,698,250.29. Idaho will receive USD 1,280,000. South Carolina will receive USD 1,815,511.36. Pennsylvania will receive USD 3,000,000. Oregon will receive USD 1756000. Ohio will receive USD 4,300,000. Nebraska will receive USD 1,339,427. Montana will receive USD 1,160,896. Missouri will receive USD 3,412,376.17. Louisiana will receive USD 3,293,355.19. Iowa will receive USD 1,517,959. San Diego will receive USD 4100000. Minnesota will receive USD 1,994,042.83. Texas will receive USD 7,500,000. Uthat will receive USD 1,500,000”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_18”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to jurist.org;
July 02, 2012:
The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) announced that it may shut down Apple operations in Italy for 30 days and fine the company up to 300,000 euros (USD 377,500) for unfair commercial practices. The authority claims that Apple misled customers by not advising them of their legal right to a free two-year warranty, required under Italian law. Instead, Apple marketed its AppleCare Protection Plan, a paid service. Apple was already fined 900,000 euros (USD 1,100,000) in December 2011 for unfair commercial practices after an investigation that revealed the same violations related to the free two-year service. However, since Apple had failed to comply with the antitrust ruling, AGCM decided to take further steps to force the US-based company to change its policy. In June 2012, Apple was fined 2.25 Australian dollars (USD 2,290,000) by an Australian federal court for its misleading marketing and advertising of iPad tablets”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_19”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to jurist.org;
July 02, 2012:
The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) announced that it may shut down Apple operations in Italy for 30 days and fine the company up to 300,000 euros (USD 377,500) for unfair commercial practices. The authority claims that Apple misled customers by not advising them of their legal right to a free two-year warranty, required under Italian law. Instead, Apple marketed its AppleCare Protection Plan, a paid service. Apple was already fined 900,000 euros (USD 1,100,000) in December 2011 for unfair commercial practices after an investigation that revealed the same violations related to the free two-year service. However, since Apple had failed to comply with the antitrust ruling, AGCM decided to take further steps to force the US-based company to change its policy. In June 2012, Apple was fined 2.25 Australian dollars (USD 2,290,000) by an Australian federal court for its misleading marketing and advertising of iPad tablets”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_19”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to reuters.com;
January 31, 2018:
The U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating whether Apple Inc violated securities laws concerning its disclosures that it slowed older iPhones with flagging batteries. The government has requested information from the company. Apple admitted in December that iPhone software could slow down some phones with battery problems. Aging lithium batteries deliver power unevenly, which can cause iPhones to shut down unexpectedly to protect the delicate circuits inside. The company tricked consumers into believing their phones were close to the end of their life cycle, forcing them to buy new phones or pay up to USD 80 for a replacement battery. Government agencies in countries ranging from Brazil to France and Italy to South Korea are also investigating Apple following complaints. Criminal complaint accused Apple of destruction of property and fraud”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_20”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to tg24.sky.it;
November 13, 2013:
Italian authorities placed Apple under investigation for alleged tax evasion. Milan prosecutors are investigating the computer hardware giant in relation to a suspected tax evasion of 1,590,000,000 euros. Apple is believed to have underestimated its taxable income from 2010 to 2011”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_21”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to tg24.sky.it;
November 13, 2013:
Italian authorities placed Apple under investigation for alleged tax evasion. Milan prosecutors are investigating the computer hardware giant in relation to a suspected tax evasion of 1,590,000,000 euros. Apple is believed to have underestimated its taxable income from 2010 to 2011”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_21”,
“subcategory”: “Tax Evasion”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to tg24.sky.it;
November 13, 2013:
Italian authorities placed Apple under investigation for alleged tax evasion. Milan prosecutors are investigating the computer hardware giant in relation to a suspected tax evasion of 1,590,000,000 euros. Apple is believed to have underestimated its taxable income from 2010 to 2011”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_21”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to the france24.com;
June 24, 2021:
The French court will examine on September 17, 2021, a case, in which the French Ministry of Finance and France Digitale (startups association) are accusing Apple of allegedly abusive terms of contracts for selling software on its App Store. The company can be fined up to EUR 2,000,000”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_23”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to the france24.com;
June 24, 2021:
The French court will examine on September 17, 2021, a case, in which the French Ministry of Finance and France Digitale (startups association) are accusing Apple of allegedly abusive terms of contracts for selling software on its App Store. The company can be fined up to EUR 2,000,000”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_23”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to the report, in 2018 after the release of the iOS 12 operating system with the pre-installed Screen time app, Apple Inc. began to restrict the tools and capabilities of third-party parental control applications, as a result of which such applications lost some of the important functionality. The FAS Russia Commission concluded that Apple Inc. abused its dominant position in the market for distributing mobile apps on the iOS operating system. FAS issued a remedy to the company to eliminate the violation. The Authority required the company to provide competitive conditions for mobile applications developers”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_25”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Federal Trade Commission;
January 15, 2014:
Complaint was filed against Apple Inc and the company agreed to provide full refunds to consumers, paying a minimum of USD 32,500,000. Apple also will be required to change its billing practices to ensure that it has obtained express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for items sold in mobile apps. The complaint alleges that Apple does not inform account holders that entering their password will open a 15-minute window in which children can incur unlimited charges with no further action from the account holder. In addition, according to the complaint, Apple has often presented a screen with a prompt for a parent to enter his or her password in a kids’ app without explaining to the account holder that password entry would finalize any purchase at all. In its complaint the FTC also notes that Apple received at least tens of thousands of complaints about unauthorized in-app purchases by children”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_26”,
“subcategory”: “Unauthorized”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Federal Trade Commission;
January 15, 2014:
Complaint was filed against Apple Inc and the company agreed to provide full refunds to consumers, paying a minimum of USD 32,500,000. Apple also will be required to change its billing practices to ensure that it has obtained express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for items sold in mobile apps. The complaint alleges that Apple does not inform account holders that entering their password will open a 15-minute window in which children can incur unlimited charges with no further action from the account holder. In addition, according to the complaint, Apple has often presented a screen with a prompt for a parent to enter his or her password in a kids’ app without explaining to the account holder that password entry would finalize any purchase at all. In its complaint the FTC also notes that Apple received at least tens of thousands of complaints about unauthorized in-app purchases by children”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_26”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Federal Trade Commission;
January 15, 2014:
Complaint was filed against Apple Inc and the company agreed to provide full refunds to consumers, paying a minimum of USD 32,500,000. Apple also will be required to change its billing practices to ensure that it has obtained express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for items sold in mobile apps. The complaint alleges that Apple does not inform account holders that entering their password will open a 15-minute window in which children can incur unlimited charges with no further action from the account holder. In addition, according to the complaint, Apple has often presented a screen with a prompt for a parent to enter his or her password in a kids’ app without explaining to the account holder that password entry would finalize any purchase at all. In its complaint the FTC also notes that Apple received at least tens of thousands of complaints about unauthorized in-app purchases by children”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_26”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Federal Trade Commission;
March 27, 2014:
Final order was issued against Apple Inc to resolve FTC allegations that unfairly charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without their parents’ consent. Under the settlement, by March 31, 2014, Apple must change its billing practices to ensure that it has obtained express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for in-app purchases. Apple was also ordered to full refunds, totaling a minimum of USD 32,500,000, to consumers who were billed for in-app purchases that were incurred by children and were either accidental or not authorized by the consumer. By April 15, 2014, Apple must notify all consumers charged for in-app purchases with instructions on how to obtain a refund for unauthorized purchases by kids”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_27”,
“subcategory”: “Unauthorized”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Federal Trade Commission;
March 27, 2014:
Final order was issued against Apple Inc to resolve FTC allegations that unfairly charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without their parents’ consent. Under the settlement, by March 31, 2014, Apple must change its billing practices to ensure that it has obtained express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for in-app purchases. Apple was also ordered to full refunds, totaling a minimum of USD 32,500,000, to consumers who were billed for in-app purchases that were incurred by children and were either accidental or not authorized by the consumer. By April 15, 2014, Apple must notify all consumers charged for in-app purchases with instructions on how to obtain a refund for unauthorized purchases by kids”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_27”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Federal Trade Commission;
March 27, 2014:
Final order was issued against Apple Inc to resolve FTC allegations that unfairly charged consumers for in-app purchases incurred by children without their parents’ consent. Under the settlement, by March 31, 2014, Apple must change its billing practices to ensure that it has obtained express, informed consent from consumers before charging them for in-app purchases. Apple was also ordered to full refunds, totaling a minimum of USD 32,500,000, to consumers who were billed for in-app purchases that were incurred by children and were either accidental or not authorized by the consumer. By April 15, 2014, Apple must notify all consumers charged for in-app purchases with instructions on how to obtain a refund for unauthorized purchases by kids”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_27”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Illinois Attorney General, US-New York Attorney General, US-Connecticut Attorney General, US-Ohio Attorney General;
July 10, 2013:
On July 10, 2013, Apple Inc. violated antitrust laws by conspiring with five of the largest U.S. book publishers to fix the prices of e-books”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_28”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
August 19, 2020:
Apple, Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and laptop computers that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_29”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
August 19, 2020:
Apple, Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and laptop computers that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_29”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
August 19, 2020:
Apple, Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and laptop computers that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_29”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
March 16, 2020:
Apple Inc is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) for violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain capacitive touch-controlled mobile devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_30”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
March 16, 2020:
Apple Inc is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) for violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain capacitive touch-controlled mobile devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_30”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
March 16, 2020:
Apple Inc is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) for violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain capacitive touch-controlled mobile devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_30”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
May 20, 2021:
Apple Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission. The investigation is based on a complaint filed by AliveCor, Inc., of Mountain View, CA, on April 20, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain wearable electronic devices with ECG functionality and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_31”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
May 20, 2021:
Apple Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission. The investigation is based on a complaint filed by AliveCor, Inc., of Mountain View, CA, on April 20, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain wearable electronic devices with ECG functionality and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_31”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
May 20, 2021:
Apple Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission. The investigation is based on a complaint filed by AliveCor, Inc., of Mountain View, CA, on April 20, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain wearable electronic devices with ECG functionality and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_31”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
October 22, 2020:
Apple, Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain active matrix OLED display devices and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_32”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
October 22, 2020:
Apple, Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain active matrix OLED display devices and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_32”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. International Trade Commission;
October 22, 2020:
Apple, Inc., is under investigation by U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain active matrix OLED display devices and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_32”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Iowa Attorney General, US-Kansas Attorney General, US-Missouri Attorney General, US-Virginia Attorney General, US-Utah Attorney General, US-Idaho Attorney General, US-Nebraska Attorney General, US-Arkansas Attorney General, US-District of Columbia Attorney General, US-New York Attorney General, US-Ohio Attorney General, US-Illinois Attorney General, US-Massachusetts Attorney General, US-Michigan Attorney General, US-Colorado Attorney General, US-New Mexico Attorney General, US-Tennessee Attorney General, US- Texas Attorney General, US-Connecticut Attorney General, US-Texas Attorney General and US-Pennsylvania Attorney General;
June 2016:
Apple, Inc., has reached multistate settlement of USD 400,000,000 to resolve claims that Apple, Inc conspired with retailers to raise the price of e-books from 2010 to 2012. All 33 states have filed Lawsuit against Apple, Inc. for conspiring to artificially inflate E-book prices with five major publishers. As per the settlement the state consumers will recieve the following;
Kansas consumers will receive USD 3,800,000. Utah consumers will receive USD 4,000,000. Texas consumers will receive USD 33,000,000. Iowa consumers will receive USD 5,500,000. New Mexico consumers will receive USD 2,700,000. Tennessee consumers will receive USD 8,500,000. Pennsylvania consumers will receive USD 16,800,000. Nebraska consumers will receive USD 2,500,000. Arkansas consumers will receive USD 6,930,000. Connecticut consumers will receive USD 4,800,000. Ohio consumers will receive USD 15,000,000. Illinois consumers will receive USD 19,000,000. Idaho consumers will receive USD 2,100,000. Massachusetts consumers will receive USD 9,000,000. Michigan consumers will receive USD 10,100,000. Colorado consumers will receive USD 7,000,000. Columbia consumers will receive USD 880,000. New York will receive USD 25,900,000”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_33”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Iowa Attorney General, US-Maryland Attorney General, US-Massachusetts Attorney General, US-Vermont Attorney General, US-Colorado Attorney General and the Department of Law, US-Illinois Attorney General;
April 2012:
On April 11, 2012, Lawsuit filed against Apple Inc. and others for conspiring to raise prices for e-books. The lawsuit alleges that Apple to drive up the price of e-books beginning in 2010, when Apple unveiled its first e-book reader, the iPad. For years, retailers sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers – not publishers – set the price of e-books. However, the investigation revealed that Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at USD 12.99 and USD 14.99.”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_34”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Iowa Attorney General, US-Maryland Attorney General, US-Massachusetts Attorney General, US-Vermont Attorney General, US-Colorado Attorney General and the Department of Law, US-Illinois Attorney General;
April 2012:
On April 11, 2012, Lawsuit filed against Apple Inc. and others for conspiring to raise prices for e-books. The lawsuit alleges that Apple to drive up the price of e-books beginning in 2010, when Apple unveiled its first e-book reader, the iPad. For years, retailers sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers – not publishers – set the price of e-books. However, the investigation revealed that Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at USD 12.99 and USD 14.99.”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_34”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Iowa Attorney General, US-Maryland Attorney General, US-Massachusetts Attorney General, US-Vermont Attorney General, US-Colorado Attorney General and the Department of Law, US-Illinois Attorney General;
April 2012:
On April 11, 2012, Lawsuit filed against Apple Inc. and others for conspiring to raise prices for e-books. The lawsuit alleges that Apple to drive up the price of e-books beginning in 2010, when Apple unveiled its first e-book reader, the iPad. For years, retailers sold e-books through a traditional wholesale distribution model, under which retailers – not publishers – set the price of e-books. However, the investigation revealed that Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan conspired with other publishers and Apple to artificially raise prices by imposing a distribution model in which the publishers set the prices for bestsellers at USD 12.99 and USD 14.99.”,
“category”: “Adverse Media”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_34”,
“subcategory”: “Adverse Media”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Kansas Attorney General, US-Missouri Attorney General, US-Arizona Attorney General, US-Nebraska Attorney General, US-Idaho Attorney General, US-Alabama Attorney General, US-Texas Attorney General;
March 2016:
The U.S. Supreme Court denied Apple’s petition for certiorari in United States for making final lower court decisions that Apple orchestrated a price-fixing conspiracy with five major e-book publishers and substantially raised e-book prices. The Supreme Court’s action triggers Apple’s obligation to pay USD 400,000,000 to e-book purchasers under Apple’s July 2014 agreement to settle damages actions brought by the attorneys general of 33 states and territories. Arizona will receive USD 8,600,000. Nebraska will receive USD 20,000,000. Idaho will receive USD 2,000,000 Alabama will receive USD 20,000,000 Texas will receive USD 20,000,000 According to ibtimes.com;
January 15, 2016:
European regulators have accused Apple of using its Irish subsidiaries to pay lower taxes on its overseas revenue. The iPhone maker could owe more than USD 8,000,000,000 in back taxes if a European Commission investigation rules against it and its tax practices within the economic region. The issue at the center of it all is Apple’s subsidiaries in Ireland, which regulators accuse the company of using to reduce its tax bill on overseas revenue significantly. The European Commission opened its investigation into the company’s tax arrangement in Ireland in 2014. Apple listed the European Commission investigation as one of the potential risk factors for the company in its annual regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_35”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Kansas Attorney General, US-Missouri Attorney General, US-Arizona Attorney General, US-Nebraska Attorney General, US-Idaho Attorney General, US-Alabama Attorney General, US-Texas Attorney General;
March 2016:
The U.S. Supreme Court denied Apple’s petition for certiorari in United States for making final lower court decisions that Apple orchestrated a price-fixing conspiracy with five major e-book publishers and substantially raised e-book prices. The Supreme Court’s action triggers Apple’s obligation to pay USD 400,000,000 to e-book purchasers under Apple’s July 2014 agreement to settle damages actions brought by the attorneys general of 33 states and territories. Arizona will receive USD 8,600,000. Nebraska will receive USD 20,000,000. Idaho will receive USD 2,000,000 Alabama will receive USD 20,000,000 Texas will receive USD 20,000,000 According to ibtimes.com;
January 15, 2016:
European regulators have accused Apple of using its Irish subsidiaries to pay lower taxes on its overseas revenue. The iPhone maker could owe more than USD 8,000,000,000 in back taxes if a European Commission investigation rules against it and its tax practices within the economic region. The issue at the center of it all is Apple’s subsidiaries in Ireland, which regulators accuse the company of using to reduce its tax bill on overseas revenue significantly. The European Commission opened its investigation into the company’s tax arrangement in Ireland in 2014. Apple listed the European Commission investigation as one of the potential risk factors for the company in its annual regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_35”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) - Enforcement Information;
November 25, 2019:
On November 25, 2019, Apple, Inc. has agreed to pay USD 466,912 in settlement agreement for violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations. Apple appears to have violated the FNKSR by dealing in the property or interests in property of SIS, d.o.o. , a Slovenian software company previously identified on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker. Specifically, from on or about February 24, 2015 to on or about May 9, 2017, Apple hosted, sold, and facilitated the transfer of SIS’s software applications and associated content. OFAC determined that Apple voluntarily disclosed the apparent violations, and that the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case”,
“category”: “Sanction List”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_36”,
“subcategory”: “Sanctions”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) - Enforcement Information;
November 25, 2019:
On November 25, 2019, Apple, Inc. has agreed to pay USD 466,912 in settlement agreement for violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations. Apple appears to have violated the FNKSR by dealing in the property or interests in property of SIS, d.o.o. , a Slovenian software company previously identified on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker. Specifically, from on or about February 24, 2015 to on or about May 9, 2017, Apple hosted, sold, and facilitated the transfer of SIS’s software applications and associated content. OFAC determined that Apple voluntarily disclosed the apparent violations, and that the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_36”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) - Enforcement Information;
November 25, 2019:
On November 25, 2019, Apple, Inc. has agreed to pay USD 466,912 in settlement agreement for violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations. Apple appears to have violated the FNKSR by dealing in the property or interests in property of SIS, d.o.o. , a Slovenian software company previously identified on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker. Specifically, from on or about February 24, 2015 to on or about May 9, 2017, Apple hosted, sold, and facilitated the transfer of SIS’s software applications and associated content. OFAC determined that Apple voluntarily disclosed the apparent violations, and that the apparent violations constitute a non-egregious case”,
“category”: “n/a”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_36”,
“subcategory”: “Office Of Foreign Assets Control”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Wisconsin Attorney General, US-Virginia Attorney General;
US-West Virginia Attorney General, US-Utah Attorney General, US-New York Attorney General and US-Connecticut Attorney General;
July 2014:
On July 16, 2014, Apple, Inc. has reached a settlement agreement for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy in the market for e-books. The Apple, Inc to pay USD 400,000,000 in settlement to resolve a price-fixing lawsuit. West Virginia will receive USD 1,700,000, New York will receive USD 20,000,000 and Virginia will receive USD 10,500,000”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_37”,
“subcategory”: “Conspiracy”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Wisconsin Attorney General, US-Virginia Attorney General;
US-West Virginia Attorney General, US-Utah Attorney General, US-New York Attorney General and US-Connecticut Attorney General;
July 2014:
On July 16, 2014, Apple, Inc. has reached a settlement agreement for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy in the market for e-books. The Apple, Inc to pay USD 400,000,000 in settlement to resolve a price-fixing lawsuit. West Virginia will receive USD 1,700,000, New York will receive USD 20,000,000 and Virginia will receive USD 10,500,000”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_37”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Wisconsin Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General;
US-Illinois Attorney General;
US-Connecticut Attorney General;
US-Arizona Attorney General;
US-Alaska Department of Law;
US-Iowa Attorney General;
US-Kentucky Attorney General;
US-Arkansas Attorney General;
US-Michigan Attorney General;
US-Vermont Attorney General;
US-California Attorney General;
US-North Carolina Attorney General;
US-Virginia Attorney General;
US-Florida Attorney General;
US-Indiana Attorney General;
US-Nevada Attorney General;
US-District of Columbia Attorney General;
US-Idaho Attorney General;
US-South Carolina Attorney General;
US-Pennsylvania Attorney General;
US-Oregon Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General;
US-Ohio Attorney General;
US-Nebraska Attorney General;
US-Montana Attorney General;
US-Missouri Attorney General;
US-Louisiana Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General;
US-Iowa Attorney General, San Diego County Attorney General, US- Texas Attorney General, US-Utah Attorney General, US-Tennessee Attorney General and US-Minnesota Attorney General;
November 18, 2020:
On November 18, 2020, Attorney General of over 30 states announced a USD 113,000,000 multistate settlement with Apple Inc. over Apple’s 2016 decision to throttle consumers’ iPhone speeds to address unexpected shutdowns in some iPhones. In addition to paying USD 113,000,000, Apple has agreed to injunctive terms, which include, Maintaining a prominent and accessible webpage on their website that provides clear and easily visible information to consumers about how the company manages battery performance issues, such as by throttling iPhone processing performance, Providing a clear and easily visible notice to all affected consumers when an iOS update materially affects iPhone processing performance, Providing information in the iPhone settings menu about the consumer s battery performance and maximum capacity as well as a notice of when a battery has experienced performance degradation of a significance that the consumer should service the battery and Training its consumer-facing staff regarding compliance with this injunction and the information that this injunction requires Apple to provide to consumers. Based on a multistate investigation, 34 attorneys generals allege that Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries, Apple concealed the issues from consumers. Apple’s concealment ultimately led to a software update in December, 2016 that reduced iPhone performance in an effort to keep the phones from unexpectedly shutting down”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_38”,
“subcategory”: “Investigation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to US-Wisconsin Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General;
US-Illinois Attorney General;
US-Connecticut Attorney General;
US-Arizona Attorney General;
US-Alaska Department of Law;
US-Iowa Attorney General;
US-Kentucky Attorney General;
US-Arkansas Attorney General;
US-Michigan Attorney General;
US-Vermont Attorney General;
US-California Attorney General;
US-North Carolina Attorney General;
US-Virginia Attorney General;
US-Florida Attorney General;
US-Indiana Attorney General;
US-Nevada Attorney General;
US-District of Columbia Attorney General;
US-Idaho Attorney General;
US-South Carolina Attorney General;
US-Pennsylvania Attorney General;
US-Oregon Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General;
US-Ohio Attorney General;
US-Nebraska Attorney General;
US-Montana Attorney General;
US-Missouri Attorney General;
US-Louisiana Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General;
US-Iowa Attorney General, San Diego County Attorney General, US- Texas Attorney General, US-Utah Attorney General, US-Tennessee Attorney General and US-Minnesota Attorney General;
November 18, 2020:
On November 18, 2020, Attorney General of over 30 states announced a USD 113,000,000 multistate settlement with Apple Inc. over Apple’s 2016 decision to throttle consumers’ iPhone speeds to address unexpected shutdowns in some iPhones. In addition to paying USD 113,000,000, Apple has agreed to injunctive terms, which include, Maintaining a prominent and accessible webpage on their website that provides clear and easily visible information to consumers about how the company manages battery performance issues, such as by throttling iPhone processing performance, Providing a clear and easily visible notice to all affected consumers when an iOS update materially affects iPhone processing performance, Providing information in the iPhone settings menu about the consumer s battery performance and maximum capacity as well as a notice of when a battery has experienced performance degradation of a significance that the consumer should service the battery and Training its consumer-facing staff regarding compliance with this injunction and the information that this injunction requires Apple to provide to consumers. Based on a multistate investigation, 34 attorneys generals allege that Apple discovered that battery issues were leading to unexpected shutdowns in iPhones. Rather than disclosing these issues or replacing batteries, Apple concealed the issues from consumers. Apple’s concealment ultimately led to a software update in December, 2016 that reduced iPhone performance in an effort to keep the phones from unexpectedly shutting down”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_38”,
“subcategory”: “Law & Order”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to the decree, Apple Inc. didn t publish important information about the iOS 9 operating system, which could have caused extra expenses for the customers”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_22”,
“subcategory”: “Price Manipulation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation;
August 31, 2020:
On August 10, 2020, the Federal Antimonopoly Service completed the consideration of the antimonopoly case against Apple Inc”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_13”,
“subcategory”: “Price Manipulation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to French Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF);
February 07, 2020:
On February 07, 2020, Apple group accepted to pay EUR 25,000,000 to the French authorities for misleading commercial practice, namely for failing to inform users that software updates to older iPhone models could slow down the device”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_15”,
“subcategory”: “Price Manipulation”
},
{
“remarks”: “According to the media, the company had released firmware updates for mobile phones that have caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance, thereby accelerating the process of replacing them”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“touchdate”: “2018-10-26”,
“remarks_xid”: “2562977_24”,
“subcategory”: “Price Manipulation”
}
]
},
“sourceDate”: “restricted-party database accessed on November 10, 2021”,
“deconflicted”: “Match”,
“originalTerm”: “APPLE INC.”
}
],
“akaNamesComplianceHits”: [],
“factivaResearcherNotes”: [],
“controllingShareholders”: [],
“ownershipComplianceHits”: [],
“managementComplianceHits”: [],
“shareholderComplianceHits”: [],
“corpAffiliateComplianceHits”: [],
“parentCompanyComplianceHits”: [],
“prevEstablishmentComplianceHits”: [
{
“name”: “Apple Computer, Inc”,
“redFlags”: {
“dob”: “”,
“source”: “US-WI-DOJ”,
“country”: “United States”,
“remarks”: “”,
“category”: “Enforcement”,
“position”: “Suspected of breaching the German Competition Act - June 21, 2021.”,
“entryType”: “Organization”,
“fuzzscore”: 100,
“touchdate”: “2021-05-04”,
“primaryname”: “”,
“subCategory”: “Price Manipulation”,
“complianceId”: 106340626,
“elasticscore”: 25.224161,
“remarksClassification”: “”
},
“sourceDate”: “restricted-party database accessed on November 10, 2021”,
“deconflicted”: “Match”,
“originalTerm”: “APPLE COMPUTER, INC.”
}
],
“controllingShareholdersComplianceHits”: []
}