United States of America, State of New Jersey, State of Arizona, State of California, District of Columbia, State of Connecticut, State of Maine, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of New Hampshire, State of New York, State of North Dakota, State of Oklahoma, State of Oregon, State of Tennessee, State of Vermont, and State of Wisconsin v. Apple Inc.
Beginning in the 2010s, concerns surrounding the market power of the "Big Tech" companies (Amazon, Meta Platforms, and Google) began to mount in the United States.[5] The DOJ had previously sued Apple on two occasions: on e-book prices and over alleged collusion to depress employee salaries with other tech companies.[6]
In 2020, Epic Games launched an antitrust lawsuit against Apple that challenged the company's practice of preventing apps on the App Store from offering alternative in-app purchase options.[9]
Department of Justice investigation
In June 2019, Reuters reported that the Federal Trade Commission agreed to give the Department of Justice jurisdiction in investigating Apple.[10] Then-attorney general William Barr stated in December that he intended to file a lawsuit against Apple the following year. The Department of Justice contacted several developers, including the chief executive of the parental control service Mobicip, Suren Ramasubbu; Mobicip was removed from the App Store in June 2018, after the company announced a screen time feature with parental controls in iOS 12.[11]
District Court case
In a press conference, the US Attorney General Merrick Garland made reference to the 30% "Apple Tax", criticized iMessage's "Green Bubbles", and called out the lack of NFC access for 3rd party banking apps.[12] According to the documents filed by the Attorneys General, the key categories of Apple artificially restricting competition were:[13]
"Super" Apps: hindering the usage of multi-functionality apps like those seen in China and South Korea, WeChat and KakaoTalk especially.
Messaging Apps: by labelling different devices in a certain color in iMessage (the 'green bubble') discourages switching to a different device.
Cloud Streaming Apps: restricting the selection of games on game streaming platforms (in a similar manner to the restriction of content viz a viz alternate app stores, sideloading and alternate payment interfaces)
Digital Wallets: by heavily restricting access to the NFC API and affording to itself the privilege of host-card emulation via Apple Wallet.
Cross-platform smartwatches: by overly encumbering the usage of Apple Watches with other (non-apple) devices and Wear OS watches on their own devices.
Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter stated United States v. Microsoft Corp. "paved the way for Apple to launch iTunes, iPod and eventually the iPhone", and that this new suit will “protect competition and innovation for the next generation of technology.”[14]
The case was initially set to be overseen by judge Michael E. Farbiarz until he recused himself on April 10, 2024. Judge Julien Neals became the sitting judge on the case in his absence.[15]
On August 1, 2024, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the case.[16]
References
^McCabe, David; Mickle, Tripp (March 21, 2024). "U.S. Sues Apple, Accusing It of Maintaining an iPhone Monopoly". The New York Times. Retrieved March 22, 2024. The Justice Department and 16 state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday, the federal government's most significant challenge to the reach and influence of the company that has put iPhones in the hands of more than a billion people.
