Apple is under legal fire for allegedly allowing a fake cryptocurrency trading app, Swiftcrypt, to appear on its App Store. A class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California claims the tech giant facilitated fraud by promoting its platform as safe while failing to block a scam that cost one user over $80,000.
The complaint centers on plaintiff Danyell Shin, who downloaded Swiftcrypt in late 2024. She says she trusted the app because it came from the App Store, which Apple repeatedly markets as secure and trustworthy. After transferring funds into the app, Shin lost access to her money, typical of “pig butchering” scams, where fraudsters build trust before vanishing with deposits.
App Store Promises Under Scrutiny
The lawsuit argues that Apple misled users by branding the App Store as a protected marketplace. It highlights years of Apple’s public claims about strict app reviews, fraud detection, and user security. Shin’s legal team says these assurances created a false sense of safety that led users to lower their guard.
Apple’s own guidelines require crypto apps to meet licensing and regulatory standards. The lawsuit states that Swiftcrypt failed to comply and never should have passed review. The filing alleges that Apple’s control over app distribution reinforces the perception that its vetting process protects users from fraud. Plaintiffs argue this impression is dangerously misleading.
The suit further claims that customers “overpaid” for their iPhones because part of the device’s perceived value includes the security of the App Store. Plaintiffs are demanding both financial damages and a corrective advertising campaign to address public misunderstandings about App Store safety.
Apple’s App Review Process Questioned Again
As reported by CoinGeek, the case, Shin v Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-05000, targets Apple’s core branding around the App Store. It cites statements going back to Steve Jobs, who described the store as a shield against malicious software. The suit claims this reputation has become central to Apple’s business model and user trust.
According to the filing, Apple benefits financially from the illusion of security, not just through app sales and in-app purchases, but by boosting the overall value of its ecosystem. It also states that Apple never notified Shin or other victims about Swiftcrypt’s fraudulent nature, even after it was removed.
The lawsuit brings two claims: one under California’s competition laws, the other under consumer protection statutes. Before the case moves forward, the court must certify the class action. That means it must determine whether others in Shin’s position can join the suit.
Apple has not yet responded to the allegations. This is not the first time the company’s App Store policies have been challenged in court. In the ongoing Epic Games v Apple case, Apple’s restrictive terms and 30 percent revenue cut were also at the center of the dispute.
A separate two billion dollar antitrust lawsuit against Apple is also underway in London this week. It focuses on similar exclusivity issues.
Apple’s App Store, long marketed as a fortress against fraud, now finds itself at the heart of a legal battle over its gatekeeping role and what happens when that gatekeeping fails.