You have no first amendment right to control what others use a device that you sold them. I mean how?
It's a short amendment. Can you please quote the part which you believe this law runs affoul of and explain how?
* Apple makes a phone, it works in X, Y, Z ways and asks someone to buy it. <- this is what people call "speech" for a corporation.
* Someone says, ok - I will buy this. <- spending money in a consensual transaction is considered a form of speech. This is well established in American law.
* Government later comes in and says - hey, you MUST provide feature A, even though Apple doesn't want to. <- this violates the "congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise theoreof" of the "free speech" portion of the first amendment.
It's also an infringement on the first amendment right of the customer to engage in a consensual transaction with Apple as now the government is forcing them to pay for and use something that they did not agree to in said transaction.
Apple is not being deceptive about how their walled garden works. If they were, then it's just fraud.
Anti-trust in and of itself is an infringement of the first amendment, and is often counterproductive to the intended goal anyway. How did getting slapped with Antitrust work out for Microsoft? They are bigger and more powerful than ever, and they still ship two web browsers with their operating system, and nag you when you try to change it. Standard Oil got splintered and Exxon came out of it. Many such cases.
I think at worst it's trivially arguable that many lives were saved by mandating it thus such regulations were a huge net good.
You are free to argue that this isn't but it's silly to argue that it's illegal because your theory is unsupportable.