Doesn't it show the opposite of what you claim?
Hard2find's suit against Apple and Amazon was dismissed with prejudice and that decision was confirmed on appeal.
Whatever lie you think Apple is guilty of, there doesn't appear to be any sign of it amongst the material of the suit. Going to court is expensive and time-consuming, so I presume that if such facts were available, the plaintiff would have used them.
You can believe whatever you want, but it seems like you'll have to do it despite the absence of supporting facts, at least in this case.
The lie is the claim that Apple made that plaintiffs were selling fake goods, which you'll note Apple retracted later. Whether they have liability for their lie or have immunity under free speech doctrines doesn't change the fact that they abused IP claims.
This is not an isolated instance with Apple, I have seen many others. But, as this case demonstrates, it's very tough to hold large companies accountable without a very large legal budget.
You're making pretty strong claims but are providing links to back it up that don't actually back it up. I don't see why anyone would take what you're saying seriously.
Like I said, the fact that they weren’t found to be legally liable for that is not relevant to the point I’m making, which is that they lied in an IP claim. Apple retracted the claim, as mentioned in the original complaint. They may have immunity under free speech doctrines for lying, but that doesn’t change the fact that they lied.
To be clear, the court didn’t make a decision either way on whether Apple lied. I am saying that they lied, based on the fact that they filed a complaint without basis or with flimsy basis (reviews that were not tied to a seller), and that I know of several other instances of Apple doing the exact same thing, I know some people were considering a class action against Apple for this last year. It’s just really hard and expensive to go up against Apple or any large company in court, so they are getting away with it.
H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.
The court appeared to ignore the point there.
Note that "customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products" do not appear in the complaint.
That's not the issue here, it's that they sent it to Amazon making false allegations about H2F.
Again, the fact that they don't have liability for their lie doesn't mean it wasn't a lie.
I'd note that the standard for a motion to dismiss is to accept the pleaded claims as fact, so they should accept H2F's claim that their products were geniune.
>one seller massively undercutting the rest
As the complaint says, several other sellers were pricing low.