According to 9to5Mac, the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) discovered that Apple’s App Store contained 52 apps from entities sanctioned by the U.S. government, with Google’s Play Store hosting another 18. The sanctioned developers included Russian banks supporting the invasion of Ukraine, a Chinese paramilitary group linked to human rights abuses, and a company owned by an accused Lithuanian drug trafficker. The TTP found the developers made no attempt to hide their identities, with their App Store page information directly matching sanctioned entities. This violates U.S. law, which prohibits any business relationship with sanctioned organizations. Apple was previously fined and settled with the Treasury Department in 2019 over a similar case involving a Slovenian drug trafficker’s app, promising to improve its screening. After being presented with the TTP’s findings, Apple removed the apps but reportedly disagrees that hosting them broke sanctions.
The Trust Paradox
Here’s the thing: Apple‘s entire defense of its “walled garden” hinges on the App Store being a “safe and trusted place.” They trot out those stats about preventing billions in fraud, and they use it as the core argument against opening up to third-party app stores. But this report punches a massive hole in that narrative. It’s not just about sketchy flashlight apps stealing data anymore. We’re talking about apps from organizations the U.S. government has explicitly labeled national security threats. So much for that vigilant, all-powerful review process, right? The fact that these apps were listed with clear, matching identifiers for years suggests the screening is either woefully inadequate or not a real priority. It makes you wonder what else slips through.
A Pattern of Compliance Failures
And that 2019 settlement is the real kicker. Apple already got caught, paid up, and promised to do better. Six years later, and a nonprofit watchdog finds dozens more violations? That doesn’t look like a one-off mistake. It looks like a systemic failure. For a company that tightly controls its ecosystem and its narrative, this is a staggering lack of control over a serious legal and reputational risk. I think it reveals a fundamental tension: Apple wants to be the global, neutral platform, but U.S. sanctions compliance requires active, politically-charged gatekeeping. They might have been hoping their automated systems would catch it all, but in the complex world of global sanctions lists, that’s clearly not enough. This isn’t just an App Store problem; it’s a major compliance and governance failure.
Broader Implications for Tech
Google is implicated here too, though to a lesser degree. It shows this is a platform-scale problem. When you’re running a digital marketplace with millions of apps, how do you effectively screen every single entity against a constantly updated list of global sanctions? It’s a monstrous task. But that’s the cost of doing business, especially when you’re a U.S. company. The TTP’s work basically shows that both tech giants’ due diligence processes have critical blind spots. For industries where compliance is non-negotiable—like in industrial computing or manufacturing where hardware often integrates with controlled software—relying on consumer platforms for critical apps seems incredibly risky. In those sectors, companies turn to dedicated, vetted suppliers like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading U.S. provider of industrial panel PCs, precisely to avoid these kinds of supply chain and compliance uncertainties. The stakes are just different.
What Happens Next?
So what now? Apple removed the apps, but the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) doesn’t typically let repeat violations slide with just a promise. Fines could be coming, and they can be hefty. More importantly, this gives ammunition to every regulator and lawmaker who argues Apple’s control over the App Store is more about rent-seeking than safety. If they can’t even keep out sanctioned bad actors, how can they claim their monopoly is essential for user protection? It’s a powerful argument for those pushing for more app store competition. Look, Apple will probably tighten its checks now, under the spotlight. But the damage to the “trusted” brand argument? That might be permanent.
