United States v. Apple (2024)

Last updated

United States v. Apple
Seal for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.png
Court United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Full case name 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.
Court membership
Judge sitting Julien Neals

United States, et al. v. Apple Inc. is a lawsuit brought against multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. in 2024. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Apple violated antitrust statutes. [1] [2] The lawsuit contrasts the practices of Apple with those of Microsoft in United States v. Microsoft Corp. , and alleges that Apple is engaging in similar tactics and committing even more egregious violations. [3] This lawsuit comes in the wake of Epic Games v. Apple and the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act in the European Union. [4]

Contents

Background

Antitrust lawsuits

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, the Democratic majority staff of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law released a report accusing Apple and other Big Tech companies of unlawfully wielding monopoly power. [7] The filing of United States v. Apple followed the launch of federal antitrust suits against Google (2020 and 2023), Meta (2020), and Amazon (2023). [8]

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]

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]

Related Research Articles

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the iPhone</span>

The history of the iPhone by Apple Inc. spans from the early 2000s to about 2010. The first iPhone was unveiled at Macworld 2007 and released later that year. By the end of 2009, iPhone models had been released in all major markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vanita Gupta</span> American lawyer (born 1974)

Vanita Gupta is an American attorney who served as United States Associate Attorney General from April 22, 2021, to February 2, 2024. From 2014 to 2017, Gupta served as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama.

The smartphone wars or smartphone patents licensing and litigation refers to commercial struggles among smartphone manufacturers including Sony Mobile, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Huawei, LG Electronics, ZTE and HTC, by patent litigation and other means. The conflict is part of the wider "patent wars" between technology and software corporations.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s, and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024. In early 2011, Apple initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung, who typically responded with countersuits. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the smartphone wars: extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thoughts on Flash</span> Open letter published by Steve Jobs

"Thoughts on Flash" is an open letter published by Steve Jobs, co-founder and then-chief executive officer of Apple Inc., on April 29, 2010. The letter criticizes Adobe Systems' Flash platform and outlines reasons why the technology would not be allowed on Apple's iOS hardware products. The letter drew accusations of falsehood, hypocrisy, and ulterior motive. In retrospect many publications came to agree with Jobs.

High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

RealPage, Inc. is an American property management software company, owned by the private equity firm Thoma Bravo, and known for its algorithmic rent setting, which has been accused of antitrust violations and price fixing. Its services are used to manage more than 24 million housing units worldwide in multifamily, commercial, single-family, and vacation rentals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AliveCor</span> American medical device and AI company

AliveCor is a medical device and AI company that develops ECG hardware and software compatible with consumer mobile devices to enable remote heart rhythm monitoring and detection of abnormal heart rhythms, or arrhythmias. AliveCor was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California, the United States.

Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.

<i>Epic Games v. Apple</i> 2020 U.S. lawsuit

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. was a lawsuit brought by Epic Games against Apple in August 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, related to Apple's practices in the iOS App Store. Epic Games specifically had challenged Apple's restrictions on apps from having other in-app purchasing methods outside of the one offered by the App Store. Epic Games's founder Tim Sweeney had previously challenged the 30% revenue cut that Apple takes on each purchase made in the App Store, and with their game Fortnite, wanted to either bypass Apple or have Apple take less of a cut. Epic implemented changes in Fortnite intentionally on August 13, 2020, to bypass the App Store payment system, prompting Apple to block the game from the App Store and leading to Epic filing its lawsuit. Apple filed a countersuit, asserting Epic purposely breached its terms of contract with Apple to goad it into action, and defended itself from Epic's suit.

<i>Epic Games v. Google</i> Lawsuit by Epic Games against Google

Epic Games v. Google is a lawsuit brought by Epic Games against Google in August 2020 in the Northern District of California. Filed concurrently with Epic Games v. Apple, Epic had challenged Google's monopolistic practices on its Google Play Store on Android devices. A jury trial was held in November and December 2023, after which the jury found for Epic on all counts, ruling that Google violated anti-trust laws in maintaining the Play Store as the dominant storefront with Android, including making deals to ensure apps would be solely published through the Play Store and requiring the Play Store be installed on third-party devices. The court ordered Google to allow alternate app stores on the Android system and temporarily restricted them from engaging in monetary benefits to developers that released exclusively on Google's Play Store.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jonathan Kanter</span> American lawyer (born 1973)

Jonathan Seth Kanter is an American antitrust attorney who has served as assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division since November 16, 2021. Prior to this, Kanter worked as an antitrust attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and in private practice.

<i>United States v. Google LLC</i> (2020) Antitrust case alleging Google illegally dominates internet search

United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on October 20, 2020. The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers.

<i>United States v. Google LLC</i> (2023) Antitrust case alleging Google illegally dominates digital advertising

United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on January 24, 2023. The suit accuses Google of illegally monopolizing the advertising technology (adtech) market in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The suit is separate from the first antitrust case launched in 2020 that accuses Google of an illegal monopoly in the search engine market.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cryptee</span> Document and image storage service

Cryptee is a privacy focused client-side encrypted and cross-platform productivity suite and data storage service. Users can write personal documents, notes, journals, store images, videos, and various kinds of other files. The company's commercial strategy is focused on offering to its users an open source and transparent Photo Storage, Document Editor and Cloud Storage services without trackers or advertisements as it seeks to compete with Google Docs, Google Photos and similar services through its offerings. Cryptee, based out of Tallinn, Estonia, Europe, utilizes zero-access storage to safe-keep all users' sensitive digital belongings.

<i>United States v. Live Nation Entertainment</i> Ongoing American antitrust lawsuit

United States, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC is an antitrust lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty-nine states and Washington, D.C., against entertainment company Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster, following the Taylor Swift–Ticketmaster controversy in 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open Web Advocacy</span> International digital rights group

Open Web Advocacy (OWA) is an international not-for-profit digital rights group, consisting mostly of individual software engineers who are advocating for the future of the open web. The group was formed in 2021 by Alex Moore and James Moore to advocate for the future of the open web by providing regulators, legislators and policy makers the intricate technical details that they need to understand to address the major anti-competitive issues with big tech companies.

Apple Inc. has been the subject of criticism and legal action. This includes its handling labor violations at its outsourced manufacturing hubs in China, its environmental impact of its supply chains, tax and monopoly practices, a lack of diversity and women in leadership in corporate and retail, various labor conditions, and its response to worker organizing.

References

  1. 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.
  2. "Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets". U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved March 29, 2024.
  3. Song, Victoria (March 21, 2024). "US v. Apple: everything you need to know". The Verge. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  4. Radel, Felecia. "What the DOJ lawsuit against Apple could mean for consumers". USA Today. Retrieved March 22, 2024.
  5. Morrison, Sara (December 8, 2021). "The case against Big Tech". Vox. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  6. Leswing Goswami, Kif; Goswami, Rohan (March 21, 2024). "DOJ sues Apple over iPhone monopoly in landmark antitrust case". CNBC. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  7. Ghaffary, Shirin (October 6, 2020). "The Big Tech antitrust report has one big conclusion: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are anti-competitive". Vox. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  8. Wilson, Mark (March 21, 2024). "Your iPhone may never be the same after the U.S. sues Apple. Here's how". Fast Company. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  9. Spangler, Todd (March 8, 2024). "Apple Reinstates Epic Games Developer Account for Sweden, Paving Way for 'Fortnite' and Epic Games Store on iOS in Europe". Variety. Retrieved May 5, 2024.
  10. "U.S. Justice Department considering Apple probe". Reuters. June 3, 2019. Retrieved April 17, 2024.
  11. Bartz, Diane (February 4, 2020). "iPhone app makers questioned in U.S. antitrust probe of Apple". Reuters . Retrieved April 17, 2024.
  12. "Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks on Lawsuit Against Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets". U.S. Department of Justice. March 21, 2024. Retrieved March 22, 2024.
  13. Little, Morgan (March 22, 2024). "Apple vs US antitrust lawsuit: Everything we know so far on the DOJ's iPhone case". TechCrunch. Retrieved September 9, 2024.
  14. "Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter Delivers Remarks on Lawsuit Against Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets". U.S. Department of Justice. March 21, 2024. Retrieved March 22, 2024.
  15. Roth, Emma (April 10, 2024). "Apple's antitrust case is getting a new judge". The Verge. Retrieved April 11, 2024.
  16. Feiner, Lauren (August 1, 2024). "Apple files motion to dismiss DOJ antitrust lawsuit". The Verge. Retrieved August 2, 2024.