Mar 16, 2017 07:15 PM EDT
Apple is facing a catastrophic controversy today. The company was accused and found guilty of price-fixing of retail iPhones in Russia.
Last August, Apple was faced on an allegation from the Russia's Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (FAS). However, the company denied the accusation of a price-fixing scheme in Russia, BGR reported.
Apple statement during that time of allegation is that it's the resellers who are setting their own prices for the Apple iPhone products in Russia and other countries. Unfortunately, after seven months, the company was found guilty of its denial.
According to Financial Times, Russia's anti-monopoly agency was able to found out that Apple is the one which arranged for the retailers and co-ordinates the prices of iPhones. The Russia's FAS further said that it was the Apple's Russian subsidiary which had proclaimed the illegal command to retailers with regards to the fix-pricing scheme of iPhone 5 and iPhone 6.
Additionally, the agency stated the Apple had instructed 16 of its Russian retailers to implement the holding of its iPhone models. More so, Apple was said to be contacted these 16 retailers in an event where these iPhone 5 and iPhone 6 products were sold at inappropriate prices.
The FAS also suspected that Apple was able to do the termination of sale agreements with these 16 retailers if their guidelines for fix-pricing were not met. Even though Apple denied the charge, the FAS still pursued the investigation which took seven months.
Meanwhile, it had been not hard for the FAS to conduct the investigation and proceedings, for the Russian counterpart of Apple actively co-operated with the agency. "The company has adopted the necessary measures for them to eliminate further violations of the law and is pursuing a policy to prevent similar violations in the future," deputy head Andrey Tsarikovsky said.
Soon, Apple would be fined following the anti-monopoly regulations of Russia that could be 15 percent of the Apple's Russian sales. This can happen in three months if the company would not counterchallenge the court's decision until it's published in three months.