New Delhi:

Tech giant Apple has issued a fresh warning to iPhone users in at least 98 countries, including in India, about a potential new mercenary spyware attack like ‘Pegasus’.

According to the Apple warning, it has detected that “you are being targeted by a mercenary spyware attack that is trying to remotely compromise the iPhone associated with your Apple ID”.

In the warning, the iPhone maker further said that this attack is “likely targeting you specifically because of who you are or what you do”.

“Although it’s never possible to achieve absolute certainty when detecting such attacks, Apple has high confidence in this warning – please take it seriously,” the company added.

In October last year, the US-based technology company sent similar warnings to users in India.

In April this year, the tech giant sent threat notifications to select users in 92 countries, including some in India, who may have been targeted using ‘mercenary spyware’ like Pegasus from the NSO Group.

Since 2021, the company has sent threat notifications multiple times a year as it detected these attacks.

Recently, the Indian government warned Apple users in India about multiple vulnerabilities in their devices.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

A teen from Colorado, United States, is facing up to six decades in jail for killing a family of five after setting fire to the wrong home for revenge over his stolen iPhone, as per a report in the New York Post. Kevin Bui, who is now 20-years-old, pleaded guilty this week to starting the late-night fire in a Denver neighbourhood in August 2020 after tracking his stolen phone to the vicinity using the “Find my iPhone” app. The man, who was aged 16 at that time, was seen as the mastermind behind the fire that killed the Senegalese family, which included two infant daughters.

The Diol family- a couple in their twenties, their daughter, their relative and her daughter, were all killed in the blaze. Three others broke bones while trying to escape the fire by jumping from the second floor.

The CCTV footage captured that night showed Bui and his two friends wearing face masks and hoodies when they set fire to the home. The three were named suspects after obtaining a search warrant to get Google to provide IP addresses that had searched the home’s address within 15 days of the fire. They were then arrested almost five months after the incident.

Dillon Siebert, who was 14 years old at the time, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last year and was given a sentence of three years in juvenile detention and seven years in a state prison programme for young inmates.

In March, Gavin Seymour, a 19-year-old who had pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree murder, was given a 40-year jail term.

Meanwhile, Bui was prosecuted as an adult and was given a sentence of up to 60 years in jail after he pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder.

The US Department of Justice on Thursday sued Apple for illegally maintaining a monopoly for its iPhone by stifling competition and imposing exorbitant costs on consumers.

The lawsuit, which was also brought by multiple US states, attacked the iPhone for raking in hundreds of billions of dollars by making it difficult for consumers to switch away to cheaper smartphones and devices.

Apple joins Amazon, Google and Facebook-owner Meta which are also facing antitrust lawsuits in the US.

What US Attorney General Merrick Garland Said On Lawsuit Against Apple

Earlier today, the Department of Justice, joined by 15 states and the District of Columbia sue Apple in the U.S. District Count for the District of New Jersey for violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Over the last two decades, Apple has become one of the most valuable public companies in the world. Today, its net income exceeds the individual Gross Domestic Product of more than 100 countries. That is in large part due to the success of the iPhone, Apple’s signature smartphone product.

For over a decade, iPhone sales have made up a majority of Apple’s annual revenue. Today, Apple’s share of the U.S. performance smartphone market exceeds 70%, and its share of the entire U.S. smartphone market exceeds 65%. Apple charges as much as nearly $1,600 for an iPhone.

But as our complaint alleges, Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law.

Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies break the law.

We allege that Apple has employed a strategy that relies on exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct that hurts both consumers and developers.

For consumers, that has meant fewer choices; higher prices and fees; lower quality smartphones, apps, and accessories; and less innovation from Apple and its competitors.

For developers, that has meant being forced to play by rules that insulate Apple from competition.

And as outlined in our complaint, we allege that Apple has consolidated its monopoly power not by making its own products better – but by making other products worse.

Apple carries out its exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct in two principal ways: 

First, Apple imposes contractual restrictions and fees that limit the features and functionality that developers can offer iPhone users.

Second, Apple selectively restricts access to the points of connection between third-party apps and the iPhone’s operating system, degrading the functionality of non-Apple apps and accessories.

As a result, for most of the past 15 years, Apple has collected a tax in the form of a 30% commission on the price of any app downloaded from the App Store as well as on in-app purchases. Apple is able to command these fees from companies of all sizes.

Apple has also suppressed the emergence of programs like cloud streaming apps – including gaming apps – as well as super apps that could reduce user dependence on Apple’s own operating system and expensive hardware. 

And, as any iPhone user who has ever seen a green text message, or received a tiny, grainy video can attest – Apple’s anticompetitive conduct also includes making it more difficult for iPhone users to message with users of non-Apple products.

It does this by diminishing the functionality of its own messaging app and by diminishing the functionality of third-party messaging apps.

By doing so, Apple knowingly and deliberately degrades quality, privacy, and security for its users.

For example, if an iPhone user messages a non-iPhone user in Apple Messages, the text appears not only as a green bubble, but incorporates limited functionality:

• The conversation is not encrypted;
• Videos are pixelated and grainy; and
• Users cannot edit messages or see typing indicators.

As a result, iPhone users perceive rival smartphones as being lower quality because the experience of messaging friends and family who do not own iPhones is worse – even though Apple is the one responsible for breaking cross-platform messaging.

And it does so intentionally.

For example, in 2013, a senior executive at Apple explained that supporting cross-platform messaging in Apple Messages, “would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.”

In 2022, Apple’s CEO was asked whether Apple would fix iPhone-to-Android messaging. The questioner added: “not to make it personal but I can’t send my mom certain videos.”

Apple’s CEO responded, “Buy your mom an iPhone.”

In addition to selectively controlling app distribution and creation, we allege that Apple is violating the law by conditionally restricting developers’ access to the interface needed to make an app functional on the Apple operating system.

For a product like a smartwatch or a digital wallet to be useful to an iPhone user, it must be able to communicate with the iPhone’s operating system. But Apple creates barriers that make it extremely difficult and expensive for both users and developers to venture outside the Apple ecosystem.

When it comes to smartwatches, Apple not only drives users to purchase an Apple Watch – which is only compatible with an iPhone – it also uses its technical and contractual controls to make it harder for someone with an iPhone to use a non-Apple smartwatch.

And when it comes to digital wallets, Apple’s exclusionary conduct goes a step further. Digital wallets allow users to store and use passes and credentials in a single app – including credit cards, personal identification, movie tickets, and car keys. Apple Wallet is Apple’s proprietary digital wallet on the iPhone.

Apple actively encourages banks, merchants, and other parties to participate in Apple Wallet. But it simultaneously exerts its monopoly power to block these same partners from developing alternative payment products and services for iPhone users.

For example, Apple has blocked third-party developers from creating competing digital wallets on the iPhone that use what is known as tap-to-pay functionality. That is the function that makes a digital wallet – well, a wallet.

Instead, Apple forces those who want to use the wallet function to share personal information with Apple – even if they would prefer to share that information solely with their bank, medical provider, or other trusted third party.

When an iPhone user puts a credit or debit card into Apple Wallet, Apple inserts itself in a process that could otherwise occur directly between the user and card issuer. This introduces an additional potential point of failure for the privacy and security of Apple users.

And that is just one way in which Apple is willing to make the iPhone less secure and less private in order to maintain its monopoly power.

The Supreme Court defines monopoly power as “the power to control prices or exclude competition.”

As set out in our complaint, Apple has that power in the smartphone market.

Now, having monopoly power does not itself violate the antitrust laws.

But it does when a firm acquires or maintains monopoly power – not because it has a superior product or superior business acumen – but by engaging in exclusionary conduct.

As set out in our complaint, Apple has maintained its power not because of its superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behavior.

Monopolies like Apple’s threaten the free and fair markets upon which our economy is based. They stifle innovation; they hurt producers and workers; and they increase costs for consumers. 

If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly.

But there’s a law for that.

The Justice Department will vigorously enforce antitrust law.

Enforcing the law protects consumers from higher prices and fewer choices. 

That is the Justice Department’s legal obligation.  That is what the American people expect. That is what they deserve.

I am grateful to the attorneys and staff of the Department’s Antitrust Division for their tireless work on this case on behalf of the American people. I will now turn the podium over to the Deputy Attorney General.

Mumbai:

A consumer disputes redressal commission here found Flipkart guilty of adopting unfair trade practices and ordered it to pay a customer Rs 10,000 for the mental harassment he suffered after it cancelled his iPhone order.

The cancellation was intentional to make extra profit, which amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair and restrictive trade practice adopted by the online platform, said the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, in the order passed last month.

The detailed order was available on Sunday.

The commission noted that though the customer had received a refund, he needed to be compensated for the mental harassment and agony he suffered because of the unilateral cancellation of his order.

As per the complainant, a Dadar resident, he ordered an iPhone from Flipkart on July, 10 2022 and paid Rs 39,628 using his credit card.

The phone was supposed to be delivered on July 12, but six days later he received an SMS from the e-commerce company that his order was cancelled.

When contacted, the company told him that their Ekart delivery boy had made several attempts to deliver the product but the complainant was unavailable and hence, the order was cancelled.

The cancellation has not only caused loss, and mental harassment but also subjected him to online fraud, the complainant said.

Flipkart’s delivery partner, Ekart Logistics, was also a party to the complaint but the commission held that it is a delivery partner and there is no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the logistics firm.

Flipkart, in its written response, said the complainant had mistakenly taken it as the seller of the product.

The company said it merely operates as an online platform as an intermediary, and all the products on the platform are sold and supplied by independent third-party sellers.

The seller in this case was International Value Retail Private Limited, and Flipkart had no role to play in the entire transaction entered between the complainant and the seller, it said.

The company claimed that it informed the seller of the complainant’s grievance, the latter said the delivery person had made several attempts to deliver the product to the address but the complainant was unavailable and hence, the order was cancelled by the seller.

The money has been refunded and the dispute exists only between the complainant and the seller, and there is no cause of action against Flipkart, it said.

However, the commission, noted that the order was “unilaterally cancelled” by the e-commerce company that too when the complainant was constantly in touch with it and was assured that his concern was being looked into.

It further said Flipkart had not produced any proof about multiple attempts of service by it or by the seller as claimed.

The commission noted that Flipkart has admitted that the order was cancelled and the complainant was asked to place a fresh order.

This adds weight to the complainant’s case that the cost of the said product had increased by around Rs 7,000 and hence the order was cancelled and he was asked to place a fresh order, it said.

The commission pointed out that Flipkart had done this intentionally to make extra profit, which amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair and restrictive trade practices adopted by it.

“Though the complainant has received the refund, he needs to be compensated for the mental harassment and agony suffered by him due to the unilateral cancellation of his order by Flipkart,” it said.

The commission ordered Flipkart to pay Rs 10,000 towards compensation for the mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs 3,000 towards the cost. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

A woman in Fujian province in southern China was arrested after she bit and chewed an anti-theft cable at an Apple store to steal an iPhone 14 Plus priced at $960 (Rs 79,414), as per a report in South China Morning Post. The woman surnamed Qiu, was caught by police half an hour after leaving the shop with the device.

In the video of the CCTV camera going viral on Chinese social media platforms, Ms Qiu is seen standing in front of the display stand of smartphone. She then leans on the counter and places her right hand on a phone. After a brief examination of the gadget, she nibbles on the security cable multiple times before placing the phone in her bag and leaving the store.

The store manager, Wang, stated that an alarm was activated during the incident. However, the employees that investigated found nothing strange.

Police officer Zhang Jinhong was quoted as saying by SCMP that Ms Qiu acted cautiously and attempted to disguise her tracks by appearing to be scrolling through the phone’s screen like any other customer at a gadget store. However, as soon as she left, store employees found the chewed cord and missing phone and called the cops. Further, security camera footage was checked and showed what had occurred. The police then arrested Ms Qiu outside her house. 

As per the outlet, Ms Qiu informed police that after losing her phone, she planned to buy a new one at a store, but when she saw the cost, she decided to steal it. She has been held until the completion of the inquiry.

The video has left many people surprised. “Doesn’t she know there are security cameras everywhere?” said a person.

Another user remarked, “She has strong teeth.”