The U.S. Department of Justice sued Apple Thursday over monopolistic practices. The complaint charges Apple with shaping its practices related to privacy and security in ways that clearly help the company financially.
One quote jumps out especially in which the DOJ calls Apple's definition of privacy and security an "elastic shield":
"Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple's financial and business interests," it says.

"Apple shrouds itself in the mantle of privacy, security, and consumer preference to clothe its anticompetitive practice. To be sure, it spends billions on advertising and branding to tout the self-serving notion that only Apple can protect customers' privacy and security interests."

Not to mention, there are a few more incidents which the DOJ believes Apple is warping privacy to damage customer experience.

App Store and application distribution
It also mentioned that Apple doesn't permit the building and use of alternative app stores. But the complain mentioned that this allows the installation of secure app stores for governments and enterprise customers. It also added that as of now, developers cannot provide a separate app store for children. Of course, some of this has changed partially with the introduction of the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA). (Some of these changes only apply within the EU region.)

According to the DOJ, an important argument against Apple is that it allows users to easily sideload apps on the Mac. Developers could also distribute applications with fewer restrictions than the App Store, according to the DOJ.
The DOJ also argued that Apple restricts "super apps," which could potentially be a better alternative for the App Store to access services.
The DOJ has also charged Apple for limiting third-party apps to receive carrier-based messages, or SMS. It said that in its API documentation Apple marks SMS as "private, so other developers can't access them. Apple lets users text anyone by typing their number in the "to: field of its Messages app, but with other messaging apps it is not possible, the complaint reads.

The plaintiff further stated that Apple makes iPhones less safe compared to those operating on Android systems because Apple does not enable encryption protection whenever iPhone users send messages to Android users.

Data sharing practices
Complaints also shamed Apple for allowing "huge amounts of personal and sensitive data" to market the app through the Cupertino firm's own App Store. It also blamed the Cupertino-based company for using user data for advertisement purposes.

Beside that, Apple surrendered to deals with Google that made the latter's service as the default search engine for Safari, even when Apple is aware that there's a better privacy-focused alternative outside.

The DOJ was also on an argument that it should have all of the money shared with a bank or a medical provider instead of sharing with Apple and its digital wallet.

Essentially, the DOJ argues that the privacy and security practices of Apple are pretextual in nature and the company chooses "alternative courses" to protect its monopoly. Apple has long marketed user privacy as its strong suit, and DOJ's complaint wants to prove those claims wrong.

Apple's iPhone is not a monopoly like Windows was a monopoly

Apple's response
Apple responded in a boilerplate fashion to the request for comment from TechCrunch about the DOJ's accusation of what it claims constitutes an "unconstitutional" privacy practice by Apple:

At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love—designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people's privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users. This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would stifle our ability to make the kinds of innovative technology products that the world expects from Apple—where hardware, software, and services blend seamlessly. It will also create a dangerous precedent, allowing the government to overstep its bounds to control how people's technology is designed. We believe this case is wrong on the facts and the law and we will vigorously defend it.

The company has argued that the DOJ has discounted Apple's privacy and security features as pretextual. It points out that there does not exist an iMessage version for other operating systems and devices simply because Apple cannot guarantee user security on those devices.