[joering2]

> 3. Apple had a bug in their age verification protocol. Again, valid point, but Apple needs to follow UK law.

No they don't. They need to grow balls. They pay hefty tax rates in UK. If they would announce they are leaving UK market in 90 days, I bet you would find enough politicians to change the course of this terrible law.

[ta9000]

Why is it a US corporation’s job to unfuck UK laws? If they did get involved, you’d blast them for meddling.

[lotsofpulp]

Corporations don’t belong to a single jurisdiction.

[ta9000]

Should Apple be responsible for righting the wrongs of legislation in every country it operates in? I don’t think so. Ideally it would mettle as little as possible, even though they clearly don’t (see right to repair).

[g947o]

Hmm. I don't think the point is that Apple has to "fight". The point is that Apple needs a moral high ground and is willing to completely give up the UK market (which I understand but don't necessarily agree with). I don't see that happening with today's environment, considering that shareholders will happily fire Cook over that.

[bengale]

I think this law is the wrong way about doing what they're trying to do, but I also don't want US corps deciding what is and isn't permissible in our country.

[freedomben]

> I also don't want US corps deciding what is and isn't permissible in our country.

Apple might be the wrong company for you then. They're all about corporate control and deciding what is and isn't permissible on their devices. The first time you want to install an app that isn't approved in their app store, this becomes quite apparent.

[bengale]

They can do whatever they want on their devices that is permissible in whatever jurisdiction they're selling into, but they don't get to choose to follow our laws. If we want those changed we'll do it at the ballot box.

[NetMageSCW]

Since there is no law requiring what they are doing, what now?

[bengale]

I feel like comprehension is lacking here.

1. The original comment was about Apple using their power to influence UK law.

2. That is bad, don't do that Apple.

3. If they want to do other things not legislated against they are free to do so.

[greentea23]

I'm not aware of any law or even terms of service that prevents Apple from saying "we don't like your politics, your iPhone has been disabled, account suspended, all iCloud data deleted." I don't think they would suffer any reputation damage either at this point.

[jaccola]

You don't think Apple would suffer any reputational damage if they deleted millions of peoples cherished memories and important work notes/emails?

Also there would be many lawsuits arising from this.

[ValentineC]

Millions of people stay on Apple's happy path.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few out there who have gotten their Apple account restricted for whatever reason, and didn't have the clout, energy, or mental bandwidth to pursue it loudly and publicly.

[classified]

> They pay hefty tax rates in UK.

Are you sure?

[its_ethan]

Apple paid 304m in taxes on 1200m in profits in the UK. That's ~25% tax rate on profits. It's entirely subjective to say if that's a "pretty hefty" rate or not, but it seems to be pretty standard for G20 countries.

I suspect the UK wouldn't love losing that 304m, but Apple would also probably not enjoy losing the 1200m of profits either.

It's almost like international companies having to deal with legislation in every country they operate in is a more complicated topic than could ever be hashed out in the comment sections of a tech news site...

https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2025/07/apples-uk-tax-b...