Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DOJ's iPhone Monopoly Case Against Apple Moves Forward

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,630
39,512


Apple failed in its attempt to get the antitrust lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Justice filed against it dismissed, reports Reuters. U.S. District Judge Julien Neals, who is overseeing the case, today denied Apple's motion for dismissal.

Apple-vs-DOJ-Feature.jpg

Apple asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit in August of last year, arguing that the DOJ's complaint failed to demonstrate anticompetitive conduct, harm to consumers, or that Apple has a monopoly over the U.S. smartphone market.

The government's antitrust case against Apple will take years to play out, but it will now move forward. It is not unusual for a case to fail to be dismissed, because when filing for a dismissal, there are limits on the information that can be provided and cases often go in favor of the plaintiff.

The DOJ accused Apple of a smartphone monopoly in the United States, citing Apple's restriction of third-party access to Apple services and features and claiming that consumers are "locked" into Apple's ecosystem. Apple argues that the DOJ is attempting to force it to spend money on enriching its competitors, and that it is not a monopolist because it faces competition from companies like Samsung and Google.

Apple will now file an answer to the DOJ's initial complaint, and a discovery period will begin where Apple and the DOJ provide documents, expert testimony, and depositions. After that, there will be a summary judgment with additional arguments, and finally, a trial. The case is unlikely to make it to trial until 2028 or even later.

For a reminder about the DOJ's antitrust claims against Apple, we have a dedicated guide that explains the details in the U.S. vs. Apple legal fight.

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: DOJ's iPhone Monopoly Case Against Apple Moves Forward
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/30/doj-apple-antitrust-case-dismissal-denied/
  • Love
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: gusmula, JPack, Lyrics23 and 4 others
And Proton just sued Apple for antitrust in a case that reads very much like the Epic case.

www.reuters.com

Swiss privacy tech firm Proton sues Apple in US over app store rules

Swiss privacy software company Proton on Monday sued Apple in U.S. federal court, accusing the technology giant of maintaining an illegal stranglehold on iPhone app distribution and charging excessive commissions to app developers.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: TheHeron, TruthAboveAllElse, gusmula and 9 others
Paddle1 said:
How can Apple have a monopoly when Android exists? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Apple has the biggest share of the pie in America. Android is several OEMs, and even big ol' Samsung is small change compared to Apple's market share. Also, Blackberry, Palm, and Windows Phone have all died under the continued growth of the iPhone. LG stopped making phones. HTC too. Lots of choices disappearing.

It's legal to be a monopoly, by the way. It's how you get there and maintain that position that can be illegal.

StatCounter-vendor-US-monthly-202405-202505.png
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: JohnWick1954, GeoStructural, artifex and 6 others
More antitrust action against Apple is always good. 🥳
Paddle1 said:
How can Apple have a monopoly when Android exists? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Having monopoly power in a legal sense does not mean that there's literally only one company controlling all of the market:

States the FTC: "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct"
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: ksec, TheHeron, TruthAboveAllElse and 19 others
Paddle1 said:
How can Apple have a monopoly when Android exists? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

The plaintiffs allege the existence of a “performance smartphone” market consisting of 70% iPhones. Apple argued that even if that’s true, no prior antitrust case exists involving less than a 75% market share. The judge disagreed with Apple and said that this submarket exists and that 70% is sufficient. The judge pointed to lack of NFC chips in cheap Android smartphones as evidence of the difference between smartphones and performance smartphones (crazy — the iPhone itself didn’t have an NFC chip until the iPhone 6). Apple will continue to hammer on this weakness in the plaintiffs’ case perhaps in a discretionary appeal given the magnitude of this issue but definitely in summary judgment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: artifex, GeoStructural, Kengineer and 6 others
Paddle1 said:
How can Apple have a monopoly when Android exists? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
This is about the abuse of “monopoly power” in the sense of the Sherman Act. From https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/antitrust-law-basics-section-2-of-the-sherman-act/:

“Once there is a properly defined relevant market (product and geography), the next step is to determine whether any of the competitors in that market – including your company – have monopoly power.  Monopoly power is the ability to exclude competition or raise prices and not have any competitive consequences.  Anti-trust regulators define the latter as the ability to raise prices by 5% and keep them at that level without losing sales.  Market share in the relevant market is also a test.  If a company has over 70% market share, it is likely considered a monopolist.  If the company has less than 50% market share, it probably is not.  If the company has between 50% and 70% it falls into a grey zone. ”

It’s also not illegal to have a monopoly, but it’s illegal to use anticompetitive means in order to reach or maintain it:

“There is a common misperception that having a monopoly is bad or illegal in and of itself.  It’s not.  It is perfectly legal in the US for a company to have a monopoly and charge the maximum amount the market will bear.  If a company achieves a monopoly because of superior products or business acumen, or by historical accident, it is absolutely 100% fine.  Where a monopolist gets in trouble is when it attempts to obtain or maintain a monopoly position through anticompetitive means (“exclusionary conduct”).”

This is what Apple is being accused of, among other things due to the way they lock in developers and users.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: TruthAboveAllElse, lionel77, d686546s and 8 others
Paddle1 said:
How can Apple have a monopoly when Android exists? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Because DoJ arbitrarily defined the relevant market as either “performance smartphones,” which it describes incredibly vaguely before claiming Apple controls 70% of it; or as all smartphones, which DoJ arbitrarily determined should be measured by revenue, not users, before claiming Apple controls 65% of it.

That is, the actual numbers wouldn’t have gotten them there so they just made them up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil J. Squillante
jarman92 said:
Because DoJ arbitrarily defined the relevant market as either “performance smartphones,” which it describes incredibly vaguely before summarily determining Apple controls 70% of it; or as all smartphones, which DoJ arbitrarily determined should be measured by revenue, not users, before summarily determining Apple controls 65% of it.
Click to expand...
This is a huge weakness in the DOJ's case, and while I am really not surprised at all that the judge didn't dismiss the case outright given its importance, I suspect this will be a big issue during trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jarman92
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back