Four more states are jumping onto the DOJ's antitrust suit against Apple

AppleInsider · June 12, 2024 12:03PM

The US Department of Justice has enlisted more help in its omnibus and controversial antitrust suit against Apple, with the count now up to 20 co-plaintiffs.

The Department of Justice case will hang over Apple for years

The four states added in an amended complaint filed on June 11 are Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington. The amended filing contains no additional information other than the additional states jumping on.

"We welcome the States of Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington, who join our existing coalition to restore competition in the smartphone markets that Apple has monopolized," said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division in a statement. "We look forward to litigating this important case alongside our state partners to deliver the benefits of competition to consumers, app developers, accessory makers and the American public."

After years of speculation and rumors, an official announcement from the Department of Justice on March 21 confirmed that it is suing Apple on antitrust grounds. The United States versus Apple lawsuit addresses multiple issues, spanning nearly every aspect of how Apple runs its business.

The Department of Justice says that Apple has violated section two of the Sherman antitrust act, in five ways.

Restrictions on the App Store applied to "super apps," and in doing so, limiting the growth of apps for third parties

Cloud streaming services are limited by Apple, specifically game-streaming services

Excluding cross-platform messaging apps, forcing people to continue to buy iPhones to maintain messaging

Diminishing the functionality of non-Apple smartwatches, by limiting access to software and hardware features

Limiting digital wallets, and preventing use of the near-field communications to third-parties

In a press conference about the event, US Attorney General Merrick Garland complained about 30% fees on the App Store, degraded experience for third-party accessories, and leans heavily on Messages as part of the suit. Based on the statement, it's not clear if the US understands that RCS is coming to Messages, comprehends the limitations of the SMS standard that Messages utilizes to connect with devices that are not iPhones, or knows that the fee structure on the App Store is not a full 30% across the board -- and is free for small developers.

According to Apple, the DOJ has brought an antitrust case as a Section 2 Sherman Act claim, and that this can only "move past the pleadings" if it is shown that three specific allegations are valid. The DOJ, says Apple, has to show that the company has:

Monopoly power in a relevant market

Has performed anticompetitive conduct

It has had anticompetitive effects

Apple then says that the DOJ has accused it of restrictions that it has then failed to show have had anticompetitive effects. Apple "faces fierce competition from well-established rivals" and does not have "the market share necessary to establish or infer market power."

Consequently, Apple is asking the court to dismiss the case. But it's also going further in accusing the DOJ of attempting to change antitrust law.

If Apple's motion to dismiss is not upheld, the DOJ's case will continue and proceed to a full hearing. The dates for this are again down to the court.

A ruling on the motion to dismiss is expected by the end of July. Regardless of that ruling, with appeals expected after the trial regardless of outcome from either side, it's unlikely that the case will be resolved for years.

United States of America vs Apple by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd

Read on AppleInsider

badmonk · June 12, 2024 12:30PM

Again as others have written, this suit seems to have been written at the behest of Apple’s competitors and not to protect consumers against the things that truly bother us- online criminality such as fake malware apps, cyber crime, excessive tracking, pop-up ads & surveys etc etc. Apple’s closed garden approach is a consumer choice and for those who don’t want it…there is the android world and admittedly that has its advantage in terms of customization and maybe AI ability.

This suit is analogous to saying Taylor Swift has a monopoly on concerts.

At least they finally are taking on Ticketmaster. There are real monopolies in the world.

foregoneconclusion · June 12, 2024 1:32PM

Claiming that Apple has monopoly power in a specific price segment of the smartphone market rather than in the overall market shows how flimsy the charges are. It also bears repeating that Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act requires proving harm to the market rather than harm to competitors. You can't just say "Microsoft wanted to have a cloud gaming app in the App Store and Apple wouldn't let them do it". You would have to show that the overall cloud gaming market was harmed which would likely be very difficult to do considering Microsoft never treated iOS as the priority market for their game streaming service. They prioritized launching it on a number of other platforms before turning their attention to the iPhone.

edited June 2024

daalseth · June 12, 2024 1:56PM

And where are the antitrust suits against Adobe. That is a truly abusive monopoly. But no, Apple gets bigger headlines when people go for reelection

ssfe11 · June 12, 2024 2:21PM

overwhelming consensus agrees the DoJ has a very weak case. Just a complete waste of taxpayer money as a result of the DOJ etc needing to show that they are at least doing something.

40domi · June 12, 2024 2:27PM

No doubt the DOJ have a nice corrupt judge to do this case, just like in the Trump trial....the charges should be dismissed by any neutral judge, however I guarantee they won't be by the appointed judge

beowulfschmidt · June 12, 2024 2:54PM

DOJ: Various federal laws require fiduciary responsibility, maximizing shareholder returns, and protecting user's privacy.

Apple: "OK, we can do that." And proceeds to make oodles of cash doing it.

DOJ: Not like that!

lewk · June 12, 2024 4:32PM

Have you ever wondered why Apple's Pages app is so limited in functionality. Functionality that it use to have has been taken out. From what I've read and been told, this likely due to being asked to make is less capable so as to not compete with Microsoft's Word. This sounds highly likely to me.

As to the functionality that has been removed, try replacing tabs or carriage returns. There use to be an Advanced option in the Find & Replace window but that has been eliminated as well. I keep an old version of Pages running on my 12 year old Mac Pro tower because the older version of Pages is MUCH more powerful than the current one.

The Feds want to hurt Apple because they don't like that it supports privacy and security. They really don't like that we can Message each other with end-to-end encryption. And that they can't decode some of the things stored on iCloud.

danox · June 12, 2024 4:40PM

40domi said:

No doubt the DOJ have a nice corrupt judge to do this case, just like in the Trump trial....the charges should be dismissed by any neutral judge, however I guarantee they won't be by the appointed judge

The only corrupt thing the Judge did in the Trump trial was not holding Donald in contempt of court thru the process...... Apple actually is good at business in fact too good for the one percenters like (Elon, or Sweeney Todd who want Apple money) Little Lord Fauntleroy (Trump) however is just a convicted felon and a Tax cheat.

mikethemartian · June 12, 2024 5:37PM

badmonk said:

Again as others have written, this suit seems to have been written at the behest of Apple’s competitors and not to protect consumers against the things that truly bother us- online criminality such as fake malware apps, cyber crime, excessive tracking, pop-up ads & surveys etc etc. Apple’s closed garden approach is a consumer choice and for those who don’t want it…there is the android world and admittedly that has its advantage in terms of customization and maybe AI ability.

This suit is analogous to saying Taylor Swift has a monopoly on concerts.

At least they finally are taking on Ticketmaster. There are real monopolies in the world.

So it is OK to go after other companies but not Apple.

mikethemartian · June 12, 2024 5:39PM

40domi said:

No doubt the DOJ have a nice corrupt judge to do this case, just like in the Trump trial....the charges should be dismissed by any neutral judge, however I guarantee they won't be by the appointed judge

Yeah, sure. It was the judge that was corrupt. You’re living in fantasy land.

danox · June 12, 2024 6:35PM

That's why Apple spent a lot of time talking about API's during their WWDC Apple Intelligence presentation, Apple is going to need to educate the Public/Government/Judges on what they are and what the real cost/time/effort needed to create/maintain them far too many think it's nothing no cost magic. Apple can't take it for granted that people know they have get in the habit explaining from ground every time in public/court and also need to have field trips (show and tell) for the Judge and Jury in every case?

https://apple.slashdot.org/story/24/06/11/1817210/four-more-states-join-us-monopoly-lawsuit-against-apple Slashdot site most of people are tech people and most think it's free having building/maintaining/creating a ecosystem is just free, and Hacker News is the same what chance do you have with the Government/Lawyers/Judge/Jury in court?....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API API's are Magic Free no cost? On Slashdot/Hacker News

williamlondon · June 12, 2024 11:20PM

40domi said:

No doubt the DOJ have a nice corrupt judge to do this case, just like in the Trump trial....the charges should be dismissed by any neutral judge, however I guarantee they won't be by the appointed judge

It wasn't the DOJ, learn some fucking civics and put the damn tinfoil hat and victim card down.

williamlondon · June 12, 2024 11:21PM

mikethemartian said:

badmonk said:

Again as others have written, this suit seems to have been written at the behest of Apple’s competitors and not to protect consumers against the things that truly bother us- online criminality such as fake malware apps, cyber crime, excessive tracking, pop-up ads & surveys etc etc. Apple’s closed garden approach is a consumer choice and for those who don’t want it…there is the android world and admittedly that has its advantage in terms of customization and maybe AI ability.

This suit is analogous to saying Taylor Swift has a monopoly on concerts.

At least they finally are taking on Ticketmaster. There are real monopolies in the world.

So it is OK to go after other companies but not Apple.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com is a great resource, it's where they sell big boy pants. I suggest a visit.

max_truth · June 13, 2024 6:39PM

williamlondon said:

mikethemartian said:

badmonk said:

Again as others have written, this suit seems to have been written at the behest of Apple’s competitors and not to protect consumers against the things that truly bother us- online criminality such as fake malware apps, cyber crime, excessive tracking, pop-up ads & surveys etc etc. Apple’s closed garden approach is a consumer choice and for those who don’t want it…there is the android world and admittedly that has its advantage in terms of customization and maybe AI ability.

This suit is analogous to saying Taylor Swift has a monopoly on concerts.

At least they finally are taking on Ticketmaster. There are real monopolies in the world.

So it is OK to go after other companies but not Apple.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com is a great resource, it's where they sell big boy pants. I suggest a visit.

You have prior experience?

Four more states are jumping onto the DOJ's antitrust suit against Apple

Comments