Apple Inc. is facing a new federal lawsuit alleging that the company violated U.S. antitrust law and infringed on patented technology by copying camera software from a third-party developer and using its dominant market position to suppress competition.
The lawsuit was filed by Reincubate Ltd., a UK-based software company, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Reincubate claims Apple unlawfully incorporated key features from its Camo webcam application into Apple’s operating systems, harming competition and damaging the company’s business.
Dispute Over Camera Technology
Reincubate launched Camo in 2020, marketing it as a tool that allows users to transform their smartphones into professional-quality webcams. The software gained traction among remote workers, streamers, and business users who wanted higher-quality video for video conferencing and online content creation.
According to the complaint, Apple later introduced a competing feature called Continuity Camera, which debuted in 2022 as part of Apple’s macOS and iOS updates. Continuity Camera allows iPhones to function as webcams for Apple computers, offering seamless integration within Apple’s ecosystem.
Reincubate alleges that Apple’s Continuity Camera copied multiple patented aspects of Camo’s technology, including software-based camera controls, advanced image processing, and system-level integration features. The company claims Apple used confidential technical information to replicate Camo’s functionality.
Allegations of Anti-Competitive Conduct
Beyond patent infringement, the lawsuit asserts that Apple’s conduct violated U.S. antitrust laws by reinforcing Apple’s dominance in the smartphone and operating system markets. Reincubate argues that Apple leveraged its control over iOS and macOS to favor its own product while making it more difficult for competing applications to reach users.
The complaint states that Apple’s built-in Continuity Camera feature is deeply embedded in the operating system, making it the default option for users and limiting the visibility and usability of third-party alternatives like Camo. Reincubate claims this practice unfairly disadvantages independent developers and restricts consumer choice.
The lawsuit characterizes Apple’s actions as a form of exclusionary conduct designed to eliminate competition rather than compete on the merits.
Claims of Misuse of Developer Access
Reincubate also accuses Apple of abusing its relationship with third-party developers. According to the filing, Apple encouraged Reincubate to participate in developer programs, share technical documentation, and collaborate during beta testing phases.
Reincubate claims Apple used access to non-public information, including product roadmaps and performance data, to accelerate development of its own competing feature. The company argues that this conduct crossed legal boundaries by using privileged access to gain an unfair competitive advantage.
This practice, sometimes referred to in the technology industry as “Sherlocking,” has been a recurring criticism of Apple. The term refers to allegations that Apple incorporates popular third-party app features into its own software after learning from independent developers.
Antitrust Implications and Legal Claims
The lawsuit includes claims under federal antitrust statutes, alleging that Apple illegally maintained and expanded its market power through exclusionary conduct. Reincubate contends that Apple’s actions harmed not only its own business but also broader competition in the market for webcam and video communication software.
The company is seeking monetary damages as well as injunctive relief that would prevent Apple from continuing the alleged anti-competitive behavior. The complaint also requests court orders that could limit Apple’s ability to
favor its own software over third-party alternatives in certain contexts.
Legal experts note that private antitrust lawsuits against major technology companies have become increasingly common as regulators and competitors challenge platform operators over
alleged self-preferencing and market foreclosure.
Connection to Broader Scrutiny of Apple
The case comes at a time when Apple is already under heightened antitrust scrutiny in the United States and abroad. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice and multiple state attorneys general filed a major antitrust lawsuit accusing Apple of illegally maintaining a monopoly in the smartphone market by restricting competition and limiting consumer choice.
That government case remains ongoing and focuses on Apple’s alleged practices related to app distribution, messaging services, and ecosystem restrictions. Reincubate’s lawsuit adds to the growing list of legal challenges asserting that Apple uses its control over its platforms to disadvantage rivals.
While Reincubate’s case centers on camera and webcam technology, it raises similar themes about platform dominance, self-preferencing, and barriers to entry for independent software developers.
Apple’s Position
Apple has not publicly responded in detail to the allegations in the Reincubate lawsuit. The company has historically defended its integration of new features into iOS and macOS as a benefit to consumers, arguing that native features improve security, performance, and user experience.
Apple has also previously denied claims that it unfairly copies third-party apps, stating that it regularly develops its own features independently and that competition benefits users by driving innovation.
In this case, Apple is expected to argue that Continuity Camera is a legitimate product improvement and that it does not violate patent or antitrust laws. The company may also challenge the validity and scope of the patents at issue.
What Comes Next
The lawsuit is in its early stages, and it may take months or years to resolve. If the case proceeds, it could involve extensive discovery into Apple’s internal development processes, communications with third-party developers, and decisions related to Continuity Camera.
For independent developers, the case could have broader implications for how large platform companies interact with smaller software firms and how courts view claims of self-preferencing and technology copying.
As courts and regulators continue to examine the power of major technology companies, this case may serve as another test of how U.S.
antitrust law applies to modern digital platforms and integrated software ecosystems.
Explore thousands of updated legal job listings and find your next career move today on LawCrossing. From BigLaw to in-house counsel roles,
LawCrossing helps you discover opportunities you won’t find anywhere else.
