Apple loses bid to dismiss wide-ranging DOJ antitrust case
Apple's motion to dismiss the U.S. Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit has been rejected, which means a trial that could result in upending more of Apple's businesses will soon begin.
The US DOJ antitrust suit is moving forward
An antitrust investigation brought on by a case with Spotify in 2019 opened Apple up to a lot of scrutiny. In 2024, after years of vague threats, the Department of Justice finally filed a wide-sweeping and vague antitrust lawsuit against Apple.
The lawsuit got off to a messy start with the judge recusing himself and being replaced by US District Judge Julien Neals. Apple wrote a letter to the judge and requested an immediate dismissal, and now, more than a year later, Apple's request has finally been addressed.
According to a report from Reuters, after months of back and forth, Apple's request to dismiss the antitrust case has been rejected. This means Apple will need to face a trial over the accusation that Apple has set up technical roadblocks that prevent competition with its devices and services.
Everything from the Apple Watch to Apple Wallet will be examined thanks to the unspecific nature of the antitrust suit. The DOJ is expected to attempt to mirror the EU DMA in its approach for attacking Apple's business and regulating it as a result.
The DOJ's antitrust complaints
In spite of what the lawsuit implies, Apple is actively competing with multiple brands across multiple fronts. The idea that it has a best-selling smartwatch or a popular messaging service because of lock-in has been challenged multiple times before.
Even Apple's commission has repeatedly been ruled as fair and legal by courts, though its anti-steering practices have not. Once the DOJ is able to submit a more detailed set of arguments with examples, it'll be easier to understand the goals of the lawsuit.
The original filing suggested Apple prevented "super apps" from forming, didn't allow game streaming services, didn't allow cross-platform messaging apps, purposefully reduced competing smartwatch functionality, and limited digital wallets.
Super apps
The "super app" argument has been heard a few times before. It essentially boils down to Apple not allowing apps to become their own kind of operating system with internal app stores, banking, chat features, and more baked into one app.
A separate antitrust lawsuit was filed by a company named Proton over super apps. It suggests that Apple allowing WeChat to exist in China should mean they can exist elsewhere too.
Game streaming
The game streaming services complaint has already been addressed, though no one has bitten so far. If Microsoft wanted to, it could submit an Xbox streaming service to iOS as an app, but it hasn't.
Cross-platform messaging options
Apple's Messages app now supports RCS, the cross-platform messaging protocol that's better than SMS. Users also have the ability to select different default messaging apps like Messenger as of iOS 18.2.
Smartwatch compatibility
There have been complaints from third-party smartwatch makers about integrations. Pebble returned and is compatible with iPhone, but the maker has complained about how it can't compete with the options offered by Apple Watch.
The DOJ could seek to force Apple to offer more options and APIs. There's no clear way to do this without Apple having to invent new systems from scratch since it won't be offering its apps on third-party stores.
Apple Wallet and NFC
Apple's NFC reader has new functionality that lets third-party apps take advantage. For example, Square can now accept tap-to-pay from cards and phones when interfacing directly with the iPhone.
However, this likely won't be enough for the DOJ antitrust lawsuit. It will likely seek to have Apple allow users to select default payment apps instead of locking it to Apple Pay, like in the EU.
Apple's looming battle
Even though much of the court's arguments either have been completely addressed or rendered nearly moot by Apple's own feature updates, the lawsuit will go forward. It will take years for the proceedings to take place, and even when a verdict is reached, there will be appeals.
The US government could fundamentally change another aspect of Apple's business
Apple's approach to its platforms hasn't changed, though developers and governments seem impatient about it. Instead of providing APIs for a new system that could introduce complications or potential security or privacy implications, it spends time developing the technology internally.
Once it is ready, it releases more APIs and guidance about how to implement the once proprietary technology. There are some systems Apple keeps for itself, like AirPlay, but usually when users have alternatives like Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.
What the DOJ is asking, and why Apple is pushing back, is for Apple to open up technologies to third-parties before they are ready. This could result in Apple holding onto new technologies for years before revealing them in order to keep from getting compelled to open them up before they are ready.
Nothing has been announced yet, but initial arguments and a trial date should be set soon. And regardless of the administration in charge, Apple won't get any relief as both Democratic and Republican leaders have expressed interest in pursuing antitrust cases against Apple.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
They (developers) would like Apple to be like other OEM hardware makers they see HP and Dell and they can’t understand why Apple can’t just be a plain hardware only maker with no OS and no software.
In short kill off the last American vertical computer company from the 1980’s ie… Digital, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Data General, Wang laboratories, Commodore, SGI all gone except IBM who just a mere shadow what it once was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_computer_hardware_companies
Each of these vertical computer companies, if they wanted to sell their hardware, they had to sell an operating system that worked with it or what would be the point of anyone buying it.
All are now dead mainly because of the Microsoft/Intel personal computer era. (Which became a real monopoly that actually used dirty tricks at its peak)