From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Tyrone wrote:

b. You and I use different words for Apple's criminal case in France

I don't use "words". I use facts. The case was settled out of court. France OFFERED the settlement. When the plaintiff offers to settle, it means they know they have no case (or at best a slim chance of winning) so they SETTLE for a small fine instead. Since the case was settled OUT OF COURT, no one is judged to be "guilty".

Yes, $27.4 million IS a small fine for Apple. They made $124 billion that year. That's the equivalent of me paying a $22 fine to settle something out of court AND not be found guilty of anything.

For years, Alan Baker tried to tell us all that Apple is above the law
simply because Apple can pay any fine that the law legally allows.

That's an absurd excuse for Apple's sordid behavior.
That since Apple is filthy rich, Apple can break the law with abandon.

It's like saying I can kick the neighbor's dogs all I want simply because
the fine is only ten bucks so I can be morally, legally and ethically wrong simply because I can afford the statutory legal criminal penalty.

Let's ignore that ridiculous excuse that Apple is so rich, they're above
the law, since it's not defensible on any legal, moral or logical sense.

I'm going to respond in a separate thread so that we can hash this out.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On 2025-12-21 19:01, Marian wrote:

Tyrone wrote:

b. You and I use different words for Apple's criminal case in
France

I don't use "words". I use facts. The case was settled out of
court. France OFFERED the settlement. When the plaintiff offers to
settle, it means they know they have no case (or at best a slim
chance of winning) so they SETTLE for a small fine instead.
Since the case was settled OUT OF COURT, no one is judged to be
"guilty".

Yes, $27.4 million IS a small fine for Apple. They made $124
billion that year. That's the equivalent of me paying a $22 fine
to settle something out of court AND not be found guilty of
anything.

For years, Alan Baker tried to tell us all that Apple is above the
law simply because Apple can pay any fine that the law legally
allows.

Ummmmm...nope!

I never once said anything remotely like that.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Marian wrote:

Let's ignore that ridiculous excuse that Apple is so rich, they're above
the law, since it's not defensible on any legal, moral or logical sense.

REFERENCES:
*Apple fined 25M Euros in France for misleading consumers about slowed-down iPhones*
<https://www.politico.eu/article/apple-fined-e25m-in-france-for-misleading-consumers-about-slowed-down-iphones/>
*Apple Settles with French Authorities over 25 Million Euro Fine*
<https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2020/03/apple-settles-with-french-authorities-over-25-mill>
*France hits Apple with $27M fine for slowing down old iPhones*
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/france-hits-apple-with-27m-fine-for-slowing-down-old-iphones/>
*Apple Settles with French Authorities over 25M Euro Fine*
<https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ab9477d8-db6a-4d37-b0db-aacd4427e779>
*France Fines Apple 25 million Euros For iPhone Slowdown Controversy*
<https://myoffice-hub.com/technology/france-fines-apple-e25-million-for-iphone-slowdown-controversy-6883/>
*Apple's 48 Million Euro Wake-Up Call: How France Finally Pushed Back Against the iPhone Empire*
<https://www.ctol.digital/news/apple-france-48-million-fine-iphone-contracts-court-ruling/>
*Apple execs face jail in France after lawsuit over slowing down iPhones*
<https://goodizen.com/apple-execs-face-jail-in-france-after-lawsuit-over-slowing-down-iphones/>

The key point Tyrone is missing is that the French action against Apple was
not a civil lawsuit between private parties. It was a criminal
investigation conducted by the DGCCRF, which is part of the French Ministry
of Economy. Under French law, "misleading commercial practices" is a
criminal offense. This is not my opinion; this is stated directly in the
legal commentary on the case.

According to the Jones Day legal analysis of the settlement, the DGCCRF investigation concerned "misleading commercial practices," and under French law, that offense is criminal in nature. The analysis states that the fine
for such an offense can be as high as 10 percent of annual turnover. Apple agreed to settle and pay the fine. This is explicitly described as a
settlement of a criminal matter.

Politico also reported that the DGCCRF "hit Apple with a 25 million euro
fine" for failing to inform consumers that iOS updates would slow down
their phones. The DGCCRF is not a civil plaintiff. It is a government enforcement body with criminal authority.

So the facts are:

The case was a criminal investigation by a government enforcement agency,
not a civil lawsuit.

The offense at issue (misleading commercial practices) is a criminal
offense under French law. This is stated directly in the Jones Day analysis
of the settlement.

Apple agreed to pay the fine. In French criminal procedure, this is called
a "transaction penale" (criminal settlement). It is a mechanism that allows
a company to avoid a full criminal trial by accepting the penalty proposed
by the prosecutor.

A criminal settlement does not declare guilt, but it also does not mean
"there was no case." It means the prosecutor believed there was sufficient basis to impose a criminal penalty, and Apple agreed to pay it.

Saying "no one was judged guilty" is technically true, but irrelevant.
Criminal settlements exist precisely so that companies can accept a
criminal penalty without a formal conviction. The penalty is still criminal
in nature.

The size of the fine is irrelevant to whether the matter was criminal. The legal classification comes from the nature of the offense and the authority
of the agency imposing the penalty.

So the accurate description is:

Apple paid a criminal fine in France as part of a criminal settlement with
the DGCCRF. There was no trial and no formal finding of guilt, but the fine
was imposed under criminal law, not civil law.

That is a factual statement supported by the sources.
--
Since you're trying to act like an adult, I will respond to you in kind.
But you need to know I am intelligent. Well educated. And well informed.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2