Apple has withdrawn an app created by Andrew Tate after accusations that it encouraged misogyny and could be an illegal pyramid scheme.

Tate created the app, Real World Portal, after the closure of his “Hustler’s University”, which was an online academy for his fans, promising to assist them in making thousands of pounds while helping Tate’s videos on social media, which have been described as misogynistic, to go viral.

McCue Jury & Partners, the firm representing four British women who have accused Tate of sexual and physical assault, claimed that the app deliberately targets young men and encourages misogyny, including members of the app sharing techniques on how to control and exploit women. The firm has also claimed that there is evidence to suggest that the app is an illegal pyramid scheme, with members being charged $49.99 a month to join.

Last week, the Real World Portal app was removed from Google’s Play store after claims that it was an illegal pyramid scheme and encouraged misogyny.

On Friday night Apple also said it had removed it from its app store. It followed a letter from the legal firm asking Apple to consider whether the app was in line with its policies and whether the company was exposing itself to any corporate liability in hosting it on its platform.

Part of the letter, dated 15 September, said: “We are writing because our clients are extremely concerned that you are hosting Tate’s Real World Portal (RWP) mobile application on your Apple Store … In continuing to host RWP, not only is Apple potentially indirectly financing Tate’s alleged criminal activities but is aiding the spread of his misogynistic teachings.”

The firm had claimed that Apple was directly profiting from hosting the app, with the company taking 30% in royalties from apps and in-app purchases.

Four women in their late 20s and early 30s are pursuing civil proceedings against Tate over alleged offences between 2013 and 2016 while he was still living in the UK.

Before the news that Apple had withdrawn the app, Matt Jury, the lawyer representing the women, said: “Andrew and [his brother] Tristan Tate manipulate their significant online following to promote subscriptions to Real World Portal. From there, the benefits to users are entirely reliant upon new subscribers joining the platform.

“There is also significant evidence that this scheme is directly targeting boys and teenagers and, in my view, is nothing more than an exploitative app which has no place on Apple’s platform.”

Tate is awaiting trial in Romania on charges of human trafficking. He and Tristan were charged in June, along with two Romanian female suspects, with human trafficking, rape and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women. The suspects have denied the allegations.

A spokesperson for Andrew Tate said: “We unequivocally deny the allegations that ‘The Real World’ app operates as a pyramid scheme or perpetuates harmful techniques aimed at exploiting any individuals, particularly women. The user community, which includes a significant number of women within the 200,000-strong user base, can attest to the positive impact and educational value the app provides.

“Accusations suggesting otherwise are unfounded, lacking credible evidence, and seem to be part of a targeted campaign against Andrew Tate, a known supporter and promoter of the platform. ‘The Real World’ maintains a commitment to complete transparency, ensuring compliance with all legal and ethical standards. We invite sceptics to examine the app independently and affirm that it operates in accordance with legal and moral requirements.

“The platform is designed as an educational tool that fosters healthy habit formation, financial literacy, and self-discipline, with thousands of lives positively impacted. The decision by Google Play is being appealed.”

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      Then I look forward to a court, following due process, putting a media gag order on them taking down their web presence.

      It shouldn’t be left up to the whims of private organizations, to remove somebody from the public discourse.

      • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Part of the reason it was removed is because he was arrested, and because members of the public asked Apple to remove it. This is the government and private citizens influencing a company to deplatform an absolute cunt. And it’s not a whim, that private company has clear and public guidelines for what is allowed on their platform

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed. Fully within Apple and Google’s rights to remove any application from their app stores.

          This is why I mentioned progressive web apps as a more independent option.

      • avater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        it’s called rule of the house buddy, if you don’t play by the rules you have to fuck off, pretty easy and pretty well established.

        question: would you give hitler or stalin a platform?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Did you actually read your link?

            In June 2018, Godwin wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times denying the need to update or amend the rule. He rejected the idea that whoever invokes Godwin’s law has lost the argument, and argued that, applied appropriately, the rule “should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter.”

            No, you didn’t read it.

            • ABCDE@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Understanding it and having to read the whole Wiki page do not have to go hand in hand; you are misunderstanding jet’s intention, or at the very least you are assuming.

              Jet gave an opinion/perspective already and the question was loaded at best, not something which is intended to continue the conversation. Just because Godwin said it should function one way doesn’t actually mean it does. I do not think this is discussing in good faith, and do not see the invoking of “hitler or stalin” is conducive to a quality exchange.

          • avater@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            didn’t answer the question buddy…but pretty impressive how you can use wikipedia, I’ll give you that.

            • ABCDE@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you understand what Godwin’s Law is? Your “hitler or stalin” question is loaded at best, and makes everything after it pointless, as you are bringing up a hypothetical (and impossibility, since they are dead). Bring up someone living who is not in prison.

                • ABCDE@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s definitely a good example and more conducive to a discussion (even if it’s only one word). I don’t think dictators and tyrants should be deplatformed, I see little benefit to that. There are so many legal things in place restricting the movement of money, goods and services in and out of Russia, as well as sanctions on him and an arrest warrant. Much like with Trump, anything he says publicly can be used against him.