The linked Business Insider piece falls into a category of stories that come out fairly regularly which could be described as "exposes on truly bad things about the global supply chain that many technology companies benefit from but we've learned we get way more attention if we say 'APPLE _{and also many others}' and focus on Apple specifically." This is a pretty classic example on BI's part. The NGO in Australia that the BI piece links to describe their own findings with "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has identified 27 factories in nine Chinese provinces that are using Uyghur labour transferred from Xinjiang since 2017. Those factories claim to be part of the supply chain of 82 well-known global brands." BI puts the focus specifically on one of those 82 well-known brands, writing, "Although the report highlights that the displaced Uighur workers are present in many different companies' supply chains including Nike, BMW, and Amazon, Apple features prominently as a case study." That's both true and misleading -- they could also have written "Nike features prominently as a case study" or "Adidas features prominently as a case study." The big Apple suppliers mentioned in case study #3 also contract for Samsung, HTC, HP, Microsoft, Oppo, Nintendo, Sony, Oculus, and others.

None of this "excuses" Apple; it's just that there's something faintly disingenuous about focusing on them as if they were a unique source of this problem. We could just as easily say "your Nintendo Switch is manufactured by literal slaves in concentration camps," but we don't, because... it's not as satisfying to be outraged at Nintendo, I guess?

At any rate: I strongly suspect the OP was referring to recent controversy surrounding the way Apple runs the App Store.