Governments are usually not legally bound to act for the betterment of their constituents, and even if they were that would usually be meaningless as they usually are the entity that interprets the collective interest of their constituents.
> Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.
Corporations, unlike governments, are actually legally bound, to an extent, to serve the interests of their constituents (but their constituents are the stockholders, not the public.)
In the US, sure, you could sue them because the manner they did that:
(1) discriminated on a basis prohibited to government under the Constitution,
(2) violated some binding regulation of a superior level of government,
(3) violated a promise made by that government that you reasonably relied on to your disadvantage.
Similarly, for a private entity doling out market stalls, you could sue for the same reasons, except #1 becomes “...on a basis prohibited to businesses open to the public”. And with a private entity, there's no issue of whether governmental immunity applies to your suit.
You said it yourself: "A government is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents"
So, government: Make new rules for the unicorn tech giants. Setting new rules for these behemoths helps small businesses and therefore your constituents. You make the rules. We need them.
C'mon. A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents. Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.