MPs Slam Apple and Google for Refusing 'Easy' Fix That Could Protect Britons From Phone Theft

Global tech giants Apple and Google are under fire from furious Members of Parliament in the UK, who accuse the companies of deliberately stalling a simple anti-theft solution that could protect thousands from phone crime.

MPs Condemn Tech Giants' Inaction

Lawmakers allege that Apple and Google are intentionally delaying a crucial anti-theft fix to safeguard their financial interests. The Metropolitan Police advised the companies 18 months ago to implement a change that could render stolen mobile phones useless to criminals.

Yet, even with phone theft on the rise—an astonishing 80,000 devices were stolen in London just last year—neither company has taken action.

Profit Over Protection?

Members of Parliament have condemned the delay, asserting that criminal groups are profiting while tech firms rake in vast sums.

'It feels to a lot of people like you're dragging your feet ... and actually sitting behind this is a very strong commercial incentive. The fact that £50 million of mobile phones are stolen in London every year means that if that stopped, that would be £50 million in sales that were depressed,' said Conservative MP and former Home Office minister Kit Malthouse.

The Staggering Cost Of Inaction

According to Detective Chief Superintendent James Conway, the Met's lead on mobile phone crime, two-thirds of all thefts in the capital now involve mobile devices, costing customers and insurers an eye-watering £50 million a year.

The global trafficking of stolen devices is also staggering: 75 per cent of these phones are shipped abroad, primarily to Algeria, China and Hong Kong. While UK mobile networks block phones using IMEI numbers—making them unusable locally—lax enforcement abroad turns these devices into high-value assets.

Police Plea: A Simple Solution Ignored

Police insist there is a straightforward fix: stop stolen phones from connecting to Apple's iCloud and Google's cloud services—even internationally. This would render them useless to criminals.

'We're asking the cloud providers specifically to prevent a lost or stolen device from connecting to their cloud services,' said Darren Scates, the Met's chief digital and data tech officer. 'This doesn't even need to involve the police.'

When questioned by MPs on the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, executives from Apple and Google declined to commit to implementing the change, according to the Daily Mail.

'You could tomorrow stop phones that are on the IMEI blacklist connecting back to your services, if you so wish, both of you. But you won't do it, why?' demanded Lib Dem MP Martin Wrigley, a former tech industry professional.

Tech Firms Defend Stance Amid Scrutiny

Apple's Gary Davis, global senior director of privacy and law enforcement, pushed back, citing concerns over potential fraud and claiming that Apple was still evaluating the request. 'I deny a suggestion that we must somehow benefit from our users suffering the traumatic event of having their phones and being disconnected from their lives,' he said.

Although he noted that Apple had invested heavily in anti-theft technologies, Davis did not explain why the cloud-blocking request had not been fulfilled.

'Apple and Google continue to make profit and continue to sell more phones because these phones are not removed from the system,' Wrigley countered. 'You owe it to the customers around the world to implement this immediately. No ifs, no buts, just do it.'

Google's Simon Wingrove shared similar reservations, saying the company needed to determine whether the proposed action was 'safe and sensible' as an industry—but again, offered no concrete commitment. He said Google was 'open to having that discussion' with the Home Office.

Committee chair Chi Onwurah summarised the panel's frustrations: 'It is clear from the mood of the committee we don't feel that either Google or Apple have a road plan to effective phone protection that doesn't involve IMEI. The lack of urgency about the subject given the suffering it entails is also coming across to us.'