Apple
AAPL
Information Technology
3
exclusion reasons
2 themes
This page is part of our public exclusion list — a transparency tool that shows which companies we screen out and why. It is not investment advice, and it is not an accusation. But it is subject to change as our understanding of the facts evolves.
A September 2025 China Labor Watch investigation found workers at Foxconn's Zhengzhou iPhone 17 facility were subjected to 60–75 hour weeks, dispatch labor usage at five times the legal cap, and inadequate PPE for chemical exposure. Domestically, a November 2025 lawsuit (Fornes v. Apple) alleges systemic failure to accommodate mental health conditions, describing a burnout culture where managers reportedly ignored documented panic attacks tied to excessive workloads.
In 2025, a U.S. federal judge allowed a landmark DOJ lawsuit to proceed, finding plausible evidence that Apple illegally monopolizes the smartphone market by suppressing "super apps," limiting cross-platform messaging, and restricting digital wallet access. Simultaneously, the European Commission issued a €500 million fine for Digital Markets Act violations, ruling that Apple’s "anti-steering" tactics unfairly inflated consumer costs. In the UK, the Competition Appeal Tribunal recently ruled that Apple’s 30% App Store commission is "excessive and unfair," paving the way for a £1.5 billion collective damages claim. These global findings, bolstered by a February 2026 trial date for the Pepper class action and forced regulatory concessions in Japan, demonstrate a persistent reliance on exclusionary market structures to maintain dominance and extract supra-competitive fees.
A July 2025 appellate reversal gave Apple a win when the 5th Circuit found that manager questioning about union sentiment and removal of union flyers were non-coercive under a neutral housekeeping policy. However, ongoing NLRB proceedings through 2026 target captive audience meetings, the alleged retaliatory firing of a Slack-based pay equity advocate, and facially unlawful restrictions on social media and Slack use under the NLRA.
Research Sources
8 organizations
Related Exclusions
Wondering what we do invest in?
The Naughty List
A digest of changes to our exclusion list — new additions, removals, and the evidence behind them. We review the list continuously as new evidence surfaces.
Companies appear on our exclusion list based on our investment judgment — not because they've done anything illegal. This is a difference of values and opinion, not an accusation of wrongdoing. Exclusion does not constitute a recommendation against investing in any company, and absence from the list does not constitute a recommendation to invest.
This information is provided for educational and transparency purposes only and should not be relied upon as investment advice. Data is drawn from independent watchdogs, NGOs, government registries, and Ethical Capital's ongoing research — see Research Sources for the full list.
Ethical Capital LLC is a state-registered investment adviser in Utah (CRD #316032). Registration does not imply a certain level of skill or training.