Apple Seeks to Dismiss U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

In March, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 16 states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company has an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market with the iPhone and the device's locked-down ecosystem.

The lawsuit accuses Apple of broad anticompetitive conduct that affects everything from web browsers and messaging to apps and digital payments. According to the DOJ, Apple has made it harder for consumers to switch between smartphone platforms, blocked the development of cloud-based streaming apps, made the cross-platform messaging experience worse, limited the functionality of third-party smartwatches paired to the iPhone, prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, and more.

Some of Apple's policy changes this year have already negated some of these claims. In January, the company started allowing cloud-based game streaming apps on the App Store worldwide. And in August, it opened up the iPhone's NFC chip used by Apple Pay to third-party developers in the U.S. and select other countries.

In a New Jersey federal court on Wednesday, lawyers representing Apple argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed, claiming that the DOJ has failed to plausibly allege that the company has monopoly power in the smartphone market and that consumers were harmed. Judge Julien Neals said that he hopes to make a ruling by January.

"We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it," said Apple, when the lawsuit was filed earlier this year.

A motion to dismiss is a fairly common step in lawsuits, and it is likely that the case will proceed to trial, although some of the claims could potentially be amended or dismissed. In all likelihood, the U.S. v. Apple trial will drag on for years to come.

Read our U.S. v. Apple guide for more details about the lawsuit.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Seeks to Dismiss U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Lawsuit

 

[mystery hill]

This is getting ridiculous. Apple should pull out of the U.S.

 

[sw1tcher]

"We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it," said Apple, when the lawsuit was filed earlier this year.

Who's surprised by that statement?

Was anyone expecting Apple to say "We believe this lawsuit is 100% correct on the facts and the law, and we will not fight it"?

 

[raythompsontn]

Was anyone expecting Apple to say

The clods at the DOJ?

Maybe I should sue Apple because my DOS programs will not run with MacOS.

 

[Ctrlos]

Apple don't have a monopoly on tap-to-pay; you can still use innumerable plastic alternatives from any provider you want. As customers there has been zero call for an alternative to Apple Pay and for good reason.

 

[DominikHoffmann]

Look at my Avatar. I am all for free enterprise. However, what if iPhone users like Apple the way it is? I do have alternatives to my iPhone. I can buy an Android phone. To how many aspects of a competitor’s product should the Government be able to reduce the competitive advantage of one over the other? Should the Government be able to take away the ability for Apple have the competitive advantage because of…

• iMessage,
• the exclusive ability to run iOS,
• the exclusive integration with certain features of other Apple products (Macs, AirPods, etc.), or
• the security that Apple’s walled garden provides?

Where do we draw the line? The extreme would be to force Apple or a company to which Apple divests the iPhone to become a pure hardware company. It would turn all smart phones into a commodity, like they have become on the Android side of things. What does it matter, whether my phone is made by Samsung or LG?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This is getting ridiculous. Apple should pull out of the U.S.

We used to say "Apple should just buy [the U.S..]"

The problem with the "just exit" each market where GOV takes an action against Apple is that eventually, they run out of markets. Apple wants the maximized revenue more than they want maximum control/influence/hold and will be quick to bend when big chunks of money is actually at risk. As the article says...

Some of Apple's policy changes this year have already negated some of these claims. In January, the company started allowing cloud-based game streaming apps on the App Store worldwide. And in August, it opened up the iPhone's NFC chip used by Apple Pay to third-party developers in the U.S. and select other countries.

Like finally adopting USB-C without EU GOV "forcing" it vs. clinging to the proprietary profit of Lightning, would Apple have made these policy changes if the DOJ did NOT take such actions or imply they would?

There is lucrative money at stake and any Corp would want to preserve such cows as long as possible, no matter what. But when any GOV gets committed enough to "force" some change, Apple will change. Why? Because they want the (perhaps less) money than to bail entirely and get no money from that GOVs market. Less millions or even less billions is far better than no billions, millions, thousands, hundreds, tens or ones. As they should, Apple will almost always choose the money over nearly all other considerations. 💰💰💰

And contrary to "Apple above all else" opinions, often GOVs are taking such actions to benefit us consumers. Yes, there can be corruption. Yes, GOV can easily get things wrong. But once businesses grow into "King" (AKA "richest in the world"), it is often only GOVs that remain powerful enough to try to police sometimes self-serving/exploitive decision-making aimed at "more, more, more!" decisions.

Anyone who does not believe this should feel equally outraged when GOVs take similar action against Apple competitors... and thus we should all be probably using MacRumors via Internet Explorer today. Instead, when we check threads where action is being taken against Google or other key competitors, it often fills with "serves them right" and similar sentiment... as if GOV actions are only correct when they help Apple but are wrong when they work against whatever Apple wants. Yes, it's possible for GOV to be selectively right & wrong depending on their choices too... but the odds in them always being wrong when "it" is against Apple but right/fine when "it" favors Apple seem pretty long.

 

[DominikHoffmann]

Maybe the tack to take with the incoming administration would be that Apple’s unique security model is predicated on its walled garden and that it poses a strategic advantage in the already in full swing cyber World War III. A strategic advantage that must not be weakened.

 

[sw1tcher]

Apple don't have a monopoly on tap-to-pay; you can still use innumerable plastic alternatives from any provider you want. As customers there has been zero call for an alternative to Apple Pay and for good reason.

You mean Apple doesn't have a monopoly on tap-to-pay anymore because they finally opened up access to the NFC chip.

From the 3rd paragraph:

Some of Apple's policy changes this year have already negated some of these claims. In January, the company started allowing cloud-based game streaming apps on the App Store worldwide. And in August, it opened up the iPhone's NFC chip used by Apple Pay to third-party developers in the U.S. and select other countries.

Apple Opening Up iPhone's NFC Chip to Third-Party Developers in iOS 18.1

Apple today announced that developers will soon be able to offer NFC transactions in their own apps for the first time – something that is mostly...

www.macrumors.com

Starting with iOS 18.1 later this year, developers will be able to offer in-app contactless transactions, separate from ‌Apple Pay‌ and Apple Wallet, using new APIs. This opens up new possibilities for in-store payments, car keys, closed-loop transit, corporate badges, student IDs, home keys, hotel keys, merchant loyalty and rewards cards, and event tickets, as well as government IDs in the future.

 

[Jamie0003]

Apple don't have a monopoly on tap-to-pay; you can still use innumerable plastic alternatives from any provider you want. As customers there has been zero call for an alternative to Apple Pay and for good reason

Erm….it’s referring to the fact you can ONLY use Apple Pay with the NFC chip on an iPhone. Surely you can see that right?

 

[Jamie0003]

Look at my Avatar. I am all for free enterprise. However, what if iPhone users like Apple the way it is? I do have alternatives to my iPhone. I can buy an Android phone. To how many aspects of a competitor’s product should the Government be able to reduce the competitive advantage of one over the other? Should the Government be able to take away the ability for Apple have the competitive advantage because of…

• iMessage,
• the exclusive ability to run iOS,
• the exclusive integration with certain features of other Apple products (Macs, AirPods, etc.), or
• the security that Apple’s walled garden provides?

Where do we draw the line? The extreme would be to force Apple or a company to which Apple divests the iPhone to become a pure hardware company. It would turn all smart phones into a commodity, like they have become on the Android side of things. What does it matter, whether my phone is made by Samsung or LG?

Tell me exactly how having options negatively impacts you as a user? Because so far, there have been zero issues with the stuff the EU has been doing in this regard

 

[spazzcat]

This is getting ridiculous. Apple should pull out of the U.S.

This lawsuit is going nowhere, the new administration will kill it.

 

[spazzcat]

Erm….it’s referring to the fact you can ONLY use Apple Pay with the NFC chip on an iPhone. Surely you can see that right?

I wouldn't give anyone else access to use NFC for payment on my phone.

 

[DotCom2]

All of this is and a LOT of other stuff is going to change in 2 months anyway.

 

[Jamie0003]

I wouldn't give anyone else access to use NFC for payment on my phone.

Then don’t. It won’t affect you whatsoever. It’s not like apple’s going to suddenly drop all security for this

 

[WarmWinterHat]

All of this is and a LOT of other stuff is going to change in 2 months anyway.

Elon is pretty anti-Apple at the moment, and everyone knows he's in Trumps ear.

 

[spazzcat]

Then don’t. It won’t affect you whatsoever. It’s not like apple’s going to suddenly drop all security for this

When you open the door the risk goes up for everyone.

 

[rp2011]

Yes the lawsuit is ridiculous. People forget or like to pretend they do not remember the history of the iPhone. Apple forged into an already saturated and highly competitive wireless phone market where it was laughed off by their competition who insisted they liked their strategy better. Apple's devices were more expensive and didn't have keyboards. It was a paradigm shift that offered an easier and better experience to users at the time, as were most of their products with the Mac. And that's the problem right there: the established players did not see a reason to change. It's not Apple that forced me to switch from a Blackberry. Nor is anyone forcing anyone to stay on Android or any other platform. People like the experience and if and when they don't they can leave. Consumers have always had plenty of choice with wireless phones and the ecosystem that comes with any product they choose. It's called differentiation. Choice. The DOJ and European regulators are trying to force homogeneity where Apple has been offering choice.

 

[Jamie0003]

When you open the door the risk goes up for everyone.

Not true. It’ll be no different than any app you already have on your phone asking for access to the NFC. You just say no

 

[spazzcat]

Elon is pretty anti-Apple at the moment, and everyone knows he's in Trumps ear.

Elon is easily distracted.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Yes the lawsuit is ridiculous. People forget or like to pretend they do not remember the history of the iPhone. Apple forged into an already saturated and highly competitive wireless phone market where it was laughed off by their competition who insisted they liked their strategy better. Apple's devices were more expensive and didn't have keyboards. It was a paradigm shift that offered an easier and better experience to users at the time, as were most of their products with the Mac. And that's the problem right there: the established players did not see a reason to change. It's not Apple that forced me to switch from a Blackberry. Nor is anyone forcing anyone to stay on Android or any other platform. People like the experience and if and when they don't they can leave. Consumers have always had plenty of choice with wireless phones and the ecosystem that comes with any product they choose. It's called differentiation. Choice. The DOJ and European regulators are trying to force homogeneity where Apple has been offering choice.

Where is my choice WITHIN an ecosystem on a device I own. Apple doesn't own my iPhone.

Ownership should trump (ha) all else.

 

[sw1tcher]

This lawsuit is going nowhere, the new administration will kill it.

People keep saying things like this but at this point, it's a coin toss if Matt Gaetz becomes AG and leads the DoJ. Gaetz and a number of Republican lawmakers have lauded Lin Khan

Matt Gaetz could launch Big Tech crackdown at DOJ

President-elect Trump’s decision to nominate former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) as attorney general signals a rough road ahead for major technology firms during his second administration. Gaetz had be…

thehill.com

FTC Chair Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general for antitrust, have led the Biden administration’s aggressive antitrust push against companies such as Amazon, Apple and Alphabet, the parent company of Google.

The effort has made the pair, particularly Khan, unpopular among the business community.

However, they have also drawn support from unusual circles, including so-called “Khanservatives” — Republicans like Gaetz who have voiced approved for Khan and Kanter’s forceful approach to antitrust enforcement.

“Mr. Assistant Attorney General, I think you’re doing a good job, and that is a painful admission for me to have to make about anyone who works for the Department of Justice, an entity that I believe has been victimized by political capture,” Gaetz told Kanter at a House Judiciary Committee hearing last year.


EDIT...

We can scratch off Matt Gaetz as AG. Will the next AG nominee be as supportive as Gaetz is on antitrust action against the big tech companies though?

Gaetz withdraws from attorney general consideration

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has withdrawn his nomination to be Attorney General for President-elect Trump.

thehill.com

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on Thursday said he was withdrawing from consideration as President-elect Trump’s nomination to be attorney general.

 

[Neil J. Squillante]

This was a routine motion for a lawsuit, and it is likely that the case will proceed to trial, although some of the claims could potentially be amended or dismissed. In all likelihood, the U.S. v. Apple trial will drag on for years to come.

MacRumors, this is at least the second time you’ve characterized a “motion to dismiss“ as routine. You don’t always file one in every lawsuit. You need a justification. Every motion costs money and while not a factor in this case most cases have budgets. It’s nice to win with a motion to dismiss but if it’s not viable it’s just a waste of money. Nowadays, you can use AI and court data to predict the likelihood of success.

 

[spazzcat]

Not true. It’ll be no different than any app you already have on your phone asking for access to the NFC. You just say no

Apple has to make changes at the OS to allow this, so there more risk to everyone.

 

[Jamie0003]

Yes the lawsuit is ridiculous. People forget or like to pretend they do not remember the history of the iPhone. Apple forged into an already saturated and highly competitive wireless phone market where it was laughed off by their competition who insisted they liked their strategy better. Apple's devices were more expensive and didn't have keyboards. It was a paradigm shift that offered an easier and better experience to users at the time, as were most of their products with the Mac. And that's the problem right there: the established players did not see a reason to change. It's not Apple that forced me to switch from a Blackberry. Nor is anyone forcing anyone to stay on Android or any other platform. People like the experience and if and when they don't they can leave. Consumers have always had plenty of choice with wireless phones and the ecosystem that comes with any product they choose. It's called differentiation. Choice. The DOJ and European regulators are trying to force homogeneity where Apple has been offering choice.

Apple offers choice? What planet are you on?