U.K. consumer rights group ‘Which?’ is filing a legal claim against Apple under competition law on behalf of some 40 million users of iCloud, its cloud storage service.

The collective proceeding lawsuit, which is seeking £3 billion in compensation damages (around $3.8 billion at current exchange rates), alleges that Apple has broken competition rules by giving its own cloud storage service preferential treatment and effectively locking people into paying for iCloud at “rip-off” prices.

“iOS has a monopoly and is in control of Apple’s operating systems and it is incumbent on Apple not to use that dominance to gain an unfair advantage in related markets, like the cloud storage market. But that is exactly what has happened,” Which wrote in a press release announcing the filing of the claim with the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

The lawsuit accuses Apple of encouraging users of its devices to sign up for iCloud for photo storage and other data storage needs, while simultaneously making it difficult for consumers to use alternative storage providers — including by not allowing them to store or back up all of their phone’s data with a third-party provider.

“iOS users then have to pay for the service once photos, notes, messages and other data go over the free 5GB limit,” Which noted.

The suit also accuses Apple of overcharging U.K. consumers for iCloud subscriptions owing to the lack of competition. “Apple raised the price of iCloud for UK consumers by between 20% and 29% across its storage tiers in 2023,” it wrote, saying it’s seeking damages for all affected Apple customers — and estimating that individual consumers could be owed an average of £70 (around $90), depending on how long they’ve been paying Apple for iCloud services.

A similar lawsuit — arguing Apple unlawfully monopolized the market for cloud storage — was filed in the U.S. back in March and remains pending after the company failed to get it tossed.

[…]

Source: Apple faces UK ‘iCloud monopoly’ compensation claim worth $3.8B | TechCrunch

Corning’s Gorilla Glass is found in countless tech products, from smartphones and wearables to automobile windshields, and the European Commission has an inkling its success is due in part to the US-based business cutting anticompetitive deals.

The EC announced a formal antitrust investigation into Corning yesterday, accusing the company of abusing its dominant position as a maker of glass screens for mobile electronics, claiming the end result was the exclusion of rival glass manufacturers from the market.

The strategy ultimately caused consumers to pay higher prices, has made repairs tougher and reduced manufacturer innovation, the EC argued.

“It is very frustrating and costly experience to break a mobile phone screen,” said EC competition chief Margrethe Vestager. “Therefore, strong competition in the production of the cover glass used to protect such devices is crucial to ensure low prices and high-quality glass.

“We are investigating if Corning, a major producer of this special glass, may have tried to exclude rival glass producers, thereby depriving consumers from cheaper and more break-resistant glass,” Vestager added.

Gorilla Glass is Corning’s branding for its alkali-aluminosilicate (alkali-AS) glass screens, a chemical composite that’s more break-resistant than other types of glass, making it particularly suited for use on smartphones, wearables, laptops and tablets. Gorilla Glass can be found on devices from manufacturers including Google, Samsung, Sony, Apple and other globally recognized brands.

The Commission is concerned that Corning has abused its position with both mobile OEMs and companies that process raw glass, known as finishers. According to the EC, Corning’s OEM agreements included requirements that companies source their alkali-AS glass exclusively from Corning, for which they would receive rebates, and that OEMs report all competitive offers from rivals to Corning to give it a chance to match the price.

Pertaining to finishers, the EC alleges Corning pressed them into similar sourcing exclusivity obligations, as well as including clauses that prevented finishers from challenging Corning patents.

As this is just an opening of proceedings against Corning, the EC said Corning hasn’t been proven guilty yet. With Corning accused of violating Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, the business could face fines of up to 10 percent of its annual turnover if found guilty of abusing its market dominance.

Source: Corning facing EU antitrust suit over Gorilla Glass seals • The Register

Apple this week revised its alternative contractual terms for devs selling apps in the European Union – a revision that was immediately dismissed by critics as more “malicious compliance.”

[…]

Essentially, Apple has allowed developers in the EU to choose whether they want to use its own In‑App Purchase system for App Store transactions or an alternative payment processor for In-App transactions. EU app developers can also choose to sell their apps through a third-party storefront.

The Alternative Terms contract covers: 1) In‑App Purchase system from the App Store; 2) alternative payment processors; and 3) linking out from apps.

The StoreKit addendum covers just linking out – it “allows the ability to link out for purchases of digital goods or services for apps distributed in the EU and includes new business terms for those transactions.” It’s not for in-app transactions.

The StoreKit contract doesn’t include the Core Technology fee – assessed for devs using the Alternative Terms contract on app installs beyond one million at €0.50 for each app installed.

But it does come with two new fees: a 5 percent “Initial Acquisition Fee” and a 10/20 percent “Store Services Fee.”

On iOS, under the Alternative Terms contract, Apple demands a 17 percent commission for apps sold in EU storefronts of the App Store, or 10 percent for App Store Small Business Program participants. Then there’s the 3 percent payment processing fee, and the Core Technology fee is applicable.

There’s also an Initial acquisition fee of 5 percent “for sales of digital goods and services, made on any platform, that occur within a 12-month period after an initial install.” And there’s a Store services fee of 10 percent “for sales of digital goods and services, made on any platform, that occur within a fixed 12-month period from the date of an install, including app updates and reinstalls.”

Under the StoreKit Contract, the Initial acquisition fee is the same – 5 percent – but the Store service fee is 20 percent. For App Store Small Business Program participants or auto-renewal subscriptions beyond one year, that drops to 7 percent.

Fee calculation is complicated enough that Apple has built a web-based calculator for the task.

In a statement provided to The Register, Spotify said, “We are currently assessing Apple’s deliberately confusing proposal. At first glance, by demanding as much as a 25 percent fee for basic communication with users, Apple once again blatantly disregards the fundamental requirements of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The European Commission has made it clear that imposing recurring fees on basic elements like pricing and linking is unacceptable. We call on the Commission to expedite its investigation, implement daily fines and enforce the DMA.”

[…]

United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority – as part of its Mobile Browsers and Cloud Gaming Market investigation – is contemplating uncomfortable remedies [PDF] against the fruiterer.

[…]

Among the issues that concern the CMA are: Apple’s requirement that all browsers on its mobile devices use its own WebKit rendering engine; Apple’s and Google’s dominance of browser engines; and Apple’s rules that limit in-app browsers.

Some of the options being considered include: “Requirement for Apple to grant access to alternative browser engines to iOS”; “Requirement for Apple to grant equivalent access to iOS to browsers using alternative browser engines”; and “Requirement for Apple to grant equivalent access to APIs used by WebKit and Safari to browsers using alternative browser engines.”

[…]

Source: Apple tries again to make EU officials happy – with new fees • The Register

The European Commission has sent a request for information to Amazon on measures taken to comply with a landmark EU law on content moderation, the Digital Services Act (DSA), according to a Friday (5 July) press release.

It’s the latest in a barrage of similar requests, accusations, and fines from the EU executive against big tech platforms under the DSA and the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Amazon has been requested to provide information on the transparency of its recommendation systems, including data inputs, and opt-out options offered to users who don’t want to be profiled by their algorithms, by 26 July, the press release said.

The e-commerce giant is also requested to answer questions on its Amazon Store Ad Library, including a risk assessment report. The Library provides EU users “with the ability to query data related to advertisements and affiliate marketing content,” according to a company website.

The firm is “reviewing” the request and is working closely with the Commission, an Amazon spokesperson told Euractiv on Friday.

The Commission will assess its next steps based on the company’s replies. Since Amazon is designated a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP), meaning that it counts over 45 million users in Europe, the consequences of which can include fines up to 6% of the company’s global annual turnover. Amazon reported $574.8 billion (€530.8 billion) in net sales in 2023.

Just one week ago, the Commission sent similar requests to e-commerce platforms Temu and Shein.

Amazon had tried to suspend its DSA obligation to make its ads repository publicly available, in the Court of Justice of the EU.  But the court decided against Amazon on 27 March.

Source: European Commission probes Amazon over recommendation systems – Euractiv

Well, it’s not like Amazon hasn’t used their marketplace data to sell their own competing products before:

Amazon knew seller data was used to boost company sales

Bag maker Peak Design calls out Amazon for its copycat ways

European Commission charges Amazon over misuse of seller data to make copy cat products

Amazon Restricts How Rival Device Makers Buy Ads on Its Site

Amazon and Meta to stop using rivals marketplace data to undercut their products.

Amazon offers to share data, boost rivals to dodge EU antitrust fines

The list goes on and on – this is just from 2020 upwards.

HP “sought to take advantage of customers’ sunk costs,” printer owners claimed this week in a class action lawsuit against the hardware giant.

Lawyers representing the aggrieved were responding [PDF] in an Illinois court to an earlier HP Inc motion to dismiss a January lawsuit. Among other things, the plaintiffs’ filing stated that the printer buyers “never entered into any contractual agreement to buy only HP-branded ink prior to receiving the firmware updates.” They allege HP broke several anti-competitive statutes, which they claim:

bar tying schemes, and certain uses of software to accomplish that without permission, that would monopolize an aftermarket for replacement ink cartridges, when these results are achieved in a way that “take[s] advantage of customers’ sunk costs.”

In the case, which began in January, the plaintiffs are arguing that HP issued a firmware update between late 2022 and early 2023 that they allege disabled their printers if they installed a replacement cartridge that was not HP-branded. They are asking for damages that include the cost of now-useless third-party cartridges and an injunction to disable the part of the firmware updates that prevent the use of third-party ink.

In a March filing [PDF], HP claimed it went “to great lengths” to let customers know its printers are intended to work only with cartridges with an HP “security chip.” While the plaintiffs say it uses software updates to block consumers from using cheaper rival cartridges in HP printers, the hardware giant characterizes this as “dynamic security” measures “to prevent the use of third-party printer cartridges that copy HP’s security chips (i.e. cloned or counterfeit cartridges).”

“HP does not block cartridges that reuse HP security chips, and there are many such options available for sale. Nor does HP conceal its use of dynamic security,” the company said.

• HP CEO pay for 2023 = 270,315 printer cartridges
• HP Inc to lay off up to 6,000 staff, cut costs by $1.4 billion

It added that the printer owners can’t claim damages for being overcharged under federal antitrust laws because consumers who buy products from an intermediary can sue the manufacturer for injunctive relief under those laws, but they can’t sue the manufacturer to recover damages resulting from an alleged overcharge.

HP customers claim firmware update rendered third-party ink verboten

READ MORE

“None of the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased printer ink directly from HP after receiving a dynamic security firmware update,” HP said.

And why should they?

It also said Robinson and co. hadn’t “plausibly alleged” that HP “acted without authorization” or “exceeded authorized access” when the software tweaks came through.

HP CEO Enrique Lores has made no secret of the fact that it hopes to pull customers into a print subscription business model.

Lores said in an interview earlier this year that if a “customer doesn’t print enough or doesn’t use our supplies, it’s a bad investment.” However, in fairness, when it comes to ink cartridges, HP is far from alone in charging steep prices, with some estimates placing printer ink prices at $439-$2,380 per liter. Some printer makers make a loss on retailing the devices.

We’ve asked HP for comment. The case continues.

Source: We never agreed to only buy HP ink, say printer owners • The Register

The U.S. Department of Justice and 15 states on Thursday sued Apple (AAPL.O)

, opens new tab as the government cracks down on Big Tech, alleging the iPhone maker monopolized the smartphone market, hurt smaller rivals and drove up prices.

Apple joins competitors sued by regulators, including Alphabet’s (GOOGL.O)

, opens new tab Google, Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab and Amazon.com (AMZN.O)

, opens new tab across the administrations of both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden.

“Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate the antitrust laws,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly.”

The Justice Department said that Apple charges as much as $1,599 for an iPhone and makes larger profit than any others in the industry. Officials also said Apple charges various business partners – from software developers to credit card companies and even its rivals such as Google – behind the scenes in ways that ultimately raise prices for consumers and drive up Apple’s profit.

Dating back to its time as a marginal player in the personal computer market, Apple’s business model has long been based on charging users a premium for technology products where the company dictates nearly all of the details of how the device works and can be used. The Justice Department seeks to unwind that business model by forcing Apple, which has a market value of $2.7 trillion, to offer users more choices around how apps can tap in to the hardware that Apple designs.

[…]

The Justice Department, which was also joined by the District of Columbia in the lawsuit, is seeking changes at Apple. An official suggested some form of breakup or reduction of the size of Apple was a possibility when they noted “structural relief is also a form of equitable relief.”

The 88-page lawsuit, filed in U.S. federal court in Newark, New Jersey, said it was focused on “freeing smartphone markets from Apple’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and restoring competition to lower smartphone prices for consumers, reducing fees for developers, and preserving innovation for the future.”

In the lawsuit, the U.S. accused Apple of making it harder for consumers to block competitors and cited five examples where Apple used mechanisms to suppress technologies that would have increased competition among smartphones: so-called super apps, cloud stream game apps, messaging apps, smartwatches and digital wallets.

For example, the U.S. alleges Apple made it more difficult for competing messaging apps and smartwatches to work smoothly on its phones. It also alleges that Apple’s app store policies around streaming services for games have hurt competition.

[…]

On Thursday Reuters reported that Apple, Meta Platforms and Alphabet’s Google will be investigated for potential violations of the European Union’s Digital Markets Act that could lead to hefty fines by the end of the year, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

In Europe, Apple’s App Store business model has been dismantled by a new law called the Digital Markets Act that went into effect earlier this month. Apple plans to let developers offer their own app stores – and, importantly, pay no commissions – but rivals such as Spotify (SPOT.N)

, opens new tab and Epic argue Apple is still making it too hard to offer alternative app stores.

Source: Apple accused of monopolizing smartphone markets in US antitrust lawsuit | Reuters

Also: Apple Loses $113 Billion in Value After Regulators Close In | Bloomberg

Since Apple implemented a browser choice screen for iPhones earlier this month to comply with Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Brave Software, Mozilla, and Vivaldi have seen a surge in the number of people installing their web browsers.

It’s an early sign the Europe Union’s competition rules may actually … get this … enhance competition – an outcome that skeptics deemed unlikely.

The DMA applies to a set of six technology giants that have been designated as “gatekeepers” in order to limit their tendency to boost the usage of their own offerings – such as their own browsers, webmail, and marketplaces – to the detriment of rivals, which are pushed out of the way.

This walloping of competitors, which slashes choice and innovation, is usually achieved through default settings, contractual requirements, and other mechanisms that favor the big players over smaller upstarts. Apple and Google, as two of those gatekeeper firms, must now under Euro law make concessions to competitors to avoid further harm.

As a direct result of Europe’s DMA, Apple announced plans to implement a browser choice screen on iOS devices in January.

For Google, the DMA compliance means a browser choice screen and search choice screen on Android smartphones and tablets during device setup, as well as a search choice screen for its Chrome browser on non-Android platforms.

Choice screens can be an effective way to reduce market dominance. For example: in 2010, when Microsoft was required to provide a browser choice screen in Windows in Europe, Opera reported that its download numbers had doubled.

[…]

Brave’s figures suggest the number of daily browser installs jumped from around 8,000 on March 6, 2024 to around 11,000 a week later. And in a social media post, the developer cited those results as evidence that Apple and Google have made it hard to switch default browsers specifically to block competition.

“Monopoly defenders argue that the monopolies simply offer better products,” Brave declared. “But as you can see, when consumers get a clear choice of iOS browsers, they’re choosing alternatives to Safari. Maybe that’s why Google still hasn’t implemented a browser choice screen on Android.”

[…]

For most of us, Apple requires browsers on iOS to use Cupertino’s WebKit engine – Europe has strong-armed the iGiant into ditching that stipulation in its region.

[…]

The monopolistic practices employed by Big Tech have often hindered Firefox’s ability to innovate and offer users competitive alternatives,” a Moz spokesperson told The Register. “It is no small feat for us to cut through their tricky tactics to keep consumers locked within their own ecosystems.

“Despite less than ideal compliance, the recent implementation of the DMA choice screen is a promising step toward true competition online in the EU, which is why we’re not surprised to have seen a more than 50 percent increase in Firefox user growth in Germany and close to 30 percent increase in France just since its implementation. Still, there is a lot of room for improvement, and we’ll continue to fight for a web that puts people over profits, prioritizes privacy and is open and accessible to all.”

[…]

“We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,” Mozilla’s spokesperson lamented. “The effect of this would be to force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations – a burden Apple itself will not have to bear.

“Apple’s proposals fail to give consumers viable choices by making it as painful as possible for others to provide competitive alternatives to Safari. This is another example of Apple creating barriers to prevent true browser competition on iOS.”

[…]

Von Tetzchner criticized the way the browser choice screen has been implemented, noting that the user has to first click on Safari before being presented with the choice screen that provides non-Safari options. He also observed that if a user has gone ahead and chosen a default browser that’s not listed on Apple’s choice screen, when iOS next presents the choice screen, it won’t include the user’s already designated browser.

He expects Apple will be asked to make further accommodations, based on the fact that it has already had to backtrack several times.

“The point of all of this is to create competition,” noted von Tetzchner. “The point of this is there are certain companies that are gatekeepers that cannot control access to other applications with which they compete. And the point is to create a level playing ground. I think it’s very clear that there isn’t a level playing ground with this.”

Von Tetzchner told us he hasn’t seen Google’s choice screen, because it hasn’t debuted yet.

“I’ve been told by Google that it’s something that they came to an agreement about with the European Commission and the fact that I got that from Google is one of the differences that we see with different organizations here. We actually have a contact at Google. They have a contact with Microsoft and we’ve still not managed to get any contact at Apple, which is rather special.”

According to von Tetzchner, Cupertino has been telling the European Commission that no one will talk to Apple, when it’s the opposite situation.

“We’ve been trying really hard to get hold of anyone at Apple who will talk to us,” he said. “And that’s not happening. And again, I’m hearing the same from the other browser makers.”

[…]

 

Source: Brave, Mozilla, Vivaldi see browser installs rise on iOS • The Register

Apple’s compliance measures with the EU’s Digital Markets Act haven’t exactly been universally well received, so the iMaker is making a few tweaks to appease the software-developing masses.

In a post to its developer site today, Apple said it is modifying not only how developers can distribute apps, but also changing the structure of alternative app marketplaces and linking out for purchases that are made away from the official iOS App Store.

Let’s get the quick news out of the way first, starting with changes to alternative app marketplaces. Whereas previously alternative app marketplaces in the EU had to allow apps from other devs, Apple now says that marketplaces “can choose to offer a catalog of apps solely from the developer of the marketplace.”

Think a Meta market that contains just Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and the like – but not an Epic Games store, as developers still need to be part of the Apple Developer Program.

European Commission on Apple’s announcement:

“Gatekeepers are required to demonstrate and ensure effective compliance with the relevant obligations. The designated gatekeepers have submitted and published a compliance report explaining their proposals to comply with the relevant obligations.”We will now carefully analyse the compliance reports and assess whether the implemented measures are effective in achieving the objectives of the relevant obligations and DMA in general.”

The Commish added that “if needed,” it would “not hesitate to take formal enforcement action, using the entire toolbox, to fully enforce the DMA. The Commission can open proceedings against such gatekeeper for non-compliance, prescribe specific compliance solutions and impose fines.”

Apple also loosened its link-out rules, and will now allow developers pushing users outside the App Store for purchases to display their offers however they want. Up until now, developers had to use Apple-provided design templates to “optimize for key purchase and promotion use cases,” Cupertino said. Those templates are now optional.

Screw app marketplaces – let’s distribute on the web

The biggest announcement Apple made was the one that didn’t go live today: Allowing developers to distribute apps directly from their websites. Dubbed “Web Distribution,” Apple said the feature will be available following a software update later in the spring.

The new function will provide APIs “that facilitate the distribution of developers’ apps from the web, integrate with system functionality, back up and restore users’ apps, and more,” Apple explained on a new developer support page.

“Using App Store Connect, developers can easily download signed binary assets and host them on their website for distribution,” the company added. Users will have to give the OK for a developer to install apps on their device and this will require users to be presented with an App Store-esque system sheet that includes information about the app submitted to Apple.

Of course, not everyone will qualify for Web Distribution, which is limited to companies enrolled in the Apple Dev Program with a registration location based in an EU nation, and in good standing (that includes Epic again… for now). Developers distributing apps on the web also can’t offer anyone else’s software, have to publish transparent data collection policies, “be responsive to communications from Apple,” and have to handle their own taxes.

And let’s not forget Apple always ensures it gets a slice of the pie. Like Apple’s previously announced DMA provisions, devs distributing apps via the web will still be subject to a Core Technology Fee that will force them to pay €0.50 for each first annual install over one million in the past 12 months. That could add up quickly for big-name devs, though waivers are available for nonprofits, educational institutions and government entities.

Source: Apple to let EU developers distribute apps from the web • The Register

To read more about Apples greed tantrums and screaming like a little baby at the EU, click here

iOS 17.4 is the first version of Apple’s operating system to comply with the regulatory framework of the European Digital Markets Act. Apple must also support alternative app stores, where apps can be installed around the App Store.

The availability of this functionality is only geographically limited to the EU, and Apple has revealed for the first time that alternative app stores will stop working if you leave the EU for too long.

Furthermore, your Apple ID must be set to one of the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

The exact period during which you can travel outside the EU is not specified.

Source: Alternatieve iPhone appwinkels werken niet meer als je buiten de EU reist – Emerce

Apple’s anti-steering provisions that prevent music streaming apps from directing users outside the App Store for paid services were smacked down in the European Union today and earned the iGiant a fine of more than €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion).

The European Commission said Apple’s policies “amount to unfair trading conditions” and “are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple’s commercial interests.”

“Apple will have to open the gates to its ecosystem, to allow end users to easily find the apps they want, pay for them in any way they want, and use them on any device they want,” EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said of the decision.

Apple’s anti-steering rules have prevented developers from directing users outside the App Store – thereby circumventing Apple’s 30 percent commission – for in-app purchases and subscriptions. As part of the EC decision, Apple is being forced to end the use of anti-steering provisions in the bloc, but this restriction applies only to music streaming apps, an EC spokesperson told The Register.

Vestager described Apple’s anti-competitive conduct as having gone on for nearly a decade, resulting in iOS users paying “significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions.” The anti-steering provisions also led to a “degraded user experience,” Vestager said, as users were forced to “engage in a cumbersome search” to find cheaper prices outside the App Store because the anti-steering rule also prevented developers from telling users about cheaper prices available elsewhere.

[…]

Source: EU fines Apple nearly $2B over in-app purchases • The Register

SINGAPORE – Android users here will be blocked from installing apps from unverified sources, a process called sideloading, as part of a new trial by Google to crack down on malware scams.

The security tool will work in the background to detect apps that demand suspicious permissions, like those that grant the ability to spy on screen content or read SMS messages, which scammers have been known to abuse to intercept one-time passwords.

Singapore is the first country to begin the gradual roll-out of the security feature over the next few weeks, done in collaboration with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, according to a statement on Feb 7 by Google, which develops the Android software.

The update will progressively arrive on all Android users’ devices and will be enabled by default through Google Play Protect, said Google’s director of android security strategy Eugene Liderman, in reply to questions by The Straits Times.

Users who are blocked from downloading a suspicious app will be notified with an explanation.

Users cannot deactivate the pilot feature without disabling all of Google Play Protect, said Mr Liderman, adding that deactivation of the program, which scans Android devices for harmful behaviour like suspicious apps, is not recommended for user safety.

[…]

The update, which will be automatically activated, will roll out to all Android devices with Google Play services – a security program built into Android devices that scans for potentially harmful apps – here, starting with a small number of users to assess the effectiveness of the tool, he said.

Sideloaded apps can come in the form of apps used by overseas businesses that do not use the Google ecosystem, to device customisation tools and free versions of paid apps.

[…]

The feature marks Google’s most heavy-handed feature to stamp out malicious sideloaded apps.

[…]

Samsung, which runs on Android, also launched Auto Blocker for Samsung Galaxy device users who are using the One UI 6 software in November. The tool, which has to be activated in the settings menu, bars sideloaded apps from unverified sources.

Source: Android users in S’pore to be blocked from installing unverified apps as part of anti-scam trial | The Straits Times

So basically they are citing user safetly to limit what you do on your phone and enforce their marketplace monopoly. Something both Apple and Google have been slammed with explicitly in the EU and US as part of antitrust lawsuits – which they have lost.

Of course, Google Play Protect is itself spyware – everything it scans (which is your whole phone) is sent to Google without an opt out. So you can decide to stop this insanity by disabling the Google Spyware.