It seems like every other day brings a new lawsuit against the App Store. This time, the complaint isn’t about antitrust or denied developer requests, but a class action lawsuit that claims Apple enabled cryptocurrency scams by permitting a fraudulent trading app on the App Store. Here’s the story.
This week, a lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California (via CoinGeek), focusing on an app named Swiftcrypt, which allegedly masqueraded as a genuine crypto trading platform but was actually part of a larger “pig butchering” scam.
This scheme involves tricking users into depositing increasing amounts of money to build trust, only to lock them out and vanish with their funds.
“Customer trust is foundational to the App ecosystem.”
Danyell Shin, the lead plaintiff, claims she downloaded Swiftcrypt onto her iPhone in late 2024 after discovering it through an online investment group. Trusting the app, largely because it was available on Apple’s App Store, she transferred over $80,000 into the platform—only to see the funds disappear.
Court documents indicate that Apple’s own marketing and messaging regarding the App Store significantly contributed to users feeling secure enough to trust the app. The complaint notes Apple’s frequent assertions that the App Store is a “safe and trusted place” and emphasizes years of claims regarding a rigorous App Review process, fraud detection, and app security:
“Apple’s positive representations and the overall impression it has fostered that apps from its App Store could be trusted and were secure, due to its stringent vetting and review process, were false and deceptive.”
Apple’s App Review process scrutinized, yet again
The lawsuit provides an in-depth account of how Apple’s rules for cryptocurrency applications, which include licensing, regulatory compliance, and developer verification, were allegedly not adhered to in this case. It asserts that Swiftcrypt should never have been allowed on the App Store.
Beyond the financial losses from crypto investments, the class action contends that Apple’s entire narrative regarding App Store security is misleading under California consumer protection laws. The suit argues that individuals like Shin “overpaid” for their iPhones because part of the perceived value was linked to safety and security guarantees of the App Store that were unfulfilled.
“Apple gains revenue not just from app sales or in-app purchases but also from free apps, deriving significant profit from the added security perception, making the ongoing representation of app safety crucial to Apple’s market strategy and business growth.”
The plaintiffs are seeking not only financial restitution but also urge Apple to initiate a corrective advertising campaign to address what they claim is a widespread public misconception regarding App Store safety.
