Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this have to do with providing a source? You are the one who wrote the, not trivially obvious, claim.
If by "source" you want proof that the componenets with Apple branding are genuine parts salvaged from broken Apple products, I obviously can't do that. Here's what the article says: > The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware bei…
Beyond that, there cannot be such a presumption, enforcement action in many scenarios need to be taken well before the timeframe necessary for a formal court judgement to be delivered.
e.g. Airport baggage screening, where even if you mistakenly pick up someone else’s lookalike bag full of prohibited substances, you could still suffer quite severe consequences