On Thursday, the US Justice Department, joined by more than a dozen states, initiated a significant antitrust lawsuit against Apple, marking the latest development in a series of legal actions targeting prominent Big Tech firms. This lawsuit alleges that Apple has unlawfully monopolized the smartphone market, representing the largest case among recent antitrust complaints aimed at reining in the considerable power amassed by the tech industry over the past few decades.
According to Attorney General Merrick Garland, speaking at a press conference, the complaint asserts that Apple has maintained its monopoly not solely through legitimate competitive practices but also by contravening federal antitrust laws. Garland emphasized the importance of preventing consumers from bearing the burden of higher prices resulting from companies flouting legal boundaries.
This long-anticipated legal challenge, lodged in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, follows years of criticism directed at Apple for its alleged anti-competitive behaviors, including imposing restrictive terms on its app store, charging high fees, and adopting a “walled-garden” strategy for its hardware and software. While Apple has denied these allegations and intends to contest them vigorously, it warns of potential governmental overreach that could stifle technological innovation.
Garland highlighted the wide-reaching implications of Apple’s alleged monopolistic practices, asserting that such dominance threatens the integrity of free and fair markets, stifles innovation, and imposes higher costs on both producers and consumers. He emphasized the necessity of challenging Apple’s smartphone monopoly to prevent its further consolidation, underscoring the importance of enforcing existing antitrust laws.
One example cited by critics is Apple’s preferential treatment of its own products, granting them access to certain hardware features that are denied to competitors. This unequal treatment purportedly creates a disparity in user experience, with iPhone users enjoying seamless functionalities not available to users of other devices. Critics argue that this practice reinforces Apple’s ecosystem and erects barriers to competition, ultimately harming both consumers and developers.
Garland further emphasized the need to address these barriers and level the playing field for all market participants, highlighting Apple’s control over messaging platforms and its manipulation of multimedia texts to Android phones. By restricting certain functionalities to its own products, Apple allegedly creates artificial limitations for competitors, constraining consumer choice and stifling innovation outside its ecosystem.
In conclusion, the lawsuit against Apple represents a significant effort to address concerns over monopolistic practices in the tech industry and to safeguard competition and innovation in the marketplace.
We will vigorously challenge it
This year, European regulations forced Apple to give other companies access to the iPhone’s tap-to-pay hardware chip, enabling the creation of competing digital wallets. But those rules are limited to the European Union.
And Apple maintains a 30% commission on most sales through its app store – a frequent complaint from companies that try to sell subscriptions, saying Apple’s enormous share of the smartphone market forces them to pay what they argue is an unnecessarily high commission.
“We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it,” Apple said in a statement.
Thursday’s suit claims Apple has illegally monopolized smartphone markets by using a complex web of contractual terms that harm everything from text messaging to mobile payments. Among other things, the DOJ says, Apple has used its control over iOS, the iPhone operating system, to block innovative new apps and cloud streaming services from the public; degrade how Android messages appear on iPhones; restricted how competing smartwatches can work with iPhones; and hindered rival payment solutions.
Apple, in a statement, said the lawsuit would set a “dangerous precedent” and hinder its ability to make the compelling and consumer-friendly technology that have made the company one of the most valuable in the world.
“At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love – designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people’s privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users,” the company said in its statement. “This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets.”
The alterations sought by the DOJ from Apple
The lawsuit filed against Apple on Thursday seeks three specific remedies that could significantly alter the company’s business model.
Firstly, the Justice Department is requesting a court order to prohibit Apple from utilizing its app store to obstruct the entry of innovative new apps. Additionally, it aims to block Apple-imposed restrictions preventing integration with the iPhone for other messaging apps, smartwatches, digital wallets, and other technologies.
Secondly, the DOJ calls for the court to halt Apple from leveraging its contractual terms to “obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench” the alleged monopoly held by the company.
While the complaint, as reviewed by CNN, does not explicitly demand the breakup of Apple, it does not rule out this possibility. It requests “relief as needed to cure any competitive harm.”
The lawsuit involves several states and districts, including New Jersey, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Years of scrutiny
For years, Apple has faced legal challenges and criticism regarding its perceived anticompetitive practices. Despite this, the company has maintained a sterling consumer reputation, employing a disciplined public relations and legal strategy that mirrors the precision with which it manufactures and oversees its products.
However, the Justice Department’s landmark lawsuit now confronts a broad spectrum of Apple’s practices, marking the Biden administration’s latest attempt to hold a Big Tech giant accountable under US antitrust law. Notably, Apple was singled out in a comprehensive House report in 2020, alongside Meta, Google, and Amazon, for possessing “monopoly power.” Until Thursday, Apple stood as the sole tech company among those listed that had not faced federal government litigation for alleged antitrust violations.
The legal action’s potential impact extends beyond the courtroom, as it could influence Apple’s stock price, which currently values the company at just under $3 trillion. Moreover, it may compel the tech giant to reconsider its policies, business strategies, products, and applications. The prospect of divesting some assets is not beyond consideration for Apple, a company founded by Steve Jobs in the 1970s.
Following the announcement of the lawsuit, Apple’s (AAPL) stock experienced a 3% decline on Thursday, aligning with widespread anticipation of legal action.
In tandem with ongoing antitrust cases against Google, the DOJ’s lawsuit against Apple is poised to symbolize the Biden administration’s dedication to fostering competition and reducing prices. It also serves as a litmus test for the extent to which courts are willing to apply decades-old antitrust law to the contemporary digital economy.
Jonathan Kanter, Biden’s top DOJ antitrust official, is closely associated with this pivotal lawsuit. In his previous legal career, Kanter represented rivals to Google, including Microsoft and Yelp. He is regarded as part of a new wave of regulators, alongside his counterpart at the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan. Both Kanter and Khan have contended that the United States has tolerated corporate consolidation and anticompetitive behaviors for decades, resulting in adverse outcomes such as higher prices, limited choices, and reduced innovation for the public.
Apps vs Apple
Addressing the perennial “green bubble” dilemma experienced by Android phone users, tech entrepreneur Eric Migicovsky developed an app named Beeper Mini to facilitate messaging between Android and iPhone users without encountering the limitations imposed by Apple. However, Migicovsky lamented that Beeper Mini faced swift action from Apple, with the tech giant allegedly employing technological measures to disrupt the app’s functionality.
According to Migicovsky, Beeper Mini was operational for just three days before Apple initiated efforts to undermine its performance. Migicovsky noted that Apple’s actions included disrupting the connection and making it increasingly unreliable for Beeper Mini users, showcasing the challenges faced by developers seeking to innovate within the Apple ecosystem.
Such interactions have thrust Apple’s app store into the spotlight of antitrust scrutiny. Notably, Apple engaged in a highly publicized legal battle against Epic Games, the developer of the popular video game “Fortnite,” starting in 2020. While federal courts determined that Apple is not an illegal monopolist in distributing iOS apps, the case underscored the complexity of holding Apple accountable for alleged antitrust violations. Nevertheless, Apple faced penalties for violating California competition law and adjusted some of its app store practices in response to a court order.
These legal rulings underscore the formidable obstacles that lie ahead for the Justice Department as it seeks to build a robust legal case against Apple. Legal experts emphasize the necessity of presenting a compelling legal theory demonstrating how Apple’s actions have purportedly harmed competition. Moreover, the DOJ must establish that the purported benefits delivered by Apple to consumers do not outweigh its alleged antitrust violations, adding another layer of complexity to the legal proceedings.
Europe’s confrontation with Apple
The pressure on Apple to amend its business practices extends beyond the US government. In March, a new European Union law came into force, compelling Apple to enact substantial changes.
As part of its efforts to comply with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple announced a groundbreaking decision: users within the European Union will now have the ability to download apps from third-party app stores for the first time.
However, critics, including Epic, have wasted no time in accusing Apple of violating the EU law. Just prior to the implementation of the DMA, Epic lodged a complaint with competition authorities, alleging that Apple had obstructed its attempt to launch its own app store on iOS. The European Commission has initiated an investigation into these allegations.
Startup evolved into a behemoth
Since its inception, Apple has meticulously cultivated a reputation as a premier, design-focused brand. Its unwavering commitment to delivering a premium user experience and distinctive design aesthetic has consistently set its products apart from competitors like Microsoft and Google. This strategy of exclusivity proved successful for many years. However, a surge of grievances voiced by both app developers and consumers has brought increased scrutiny to the potential drawbacks of Apple’s stringent policies.
During the tenure of founder Steve Jobs, Apple epitomized a cultural phenomenon, juxtaposing polished professionalism with creative rebellion. According to James Bailey, a professor specializing in leadership development at the George Washington University School of Business, “Apple was a cultural phenomenon that pitted wingtips against sandals; suits against t-shirts.” Bailey notes that Apple was renowned for its relentless pursuit of innovation, always maintaining a stride ahead of its competitors.
However, the nature of Apple’s advancements has shifted in recent times. Bailey suggests that under the leadership of CEO Tim Cook, the company’s progress has become more “incremental” rather than revolutionary. While Cook has prioritized financial management and expanding market share, Apple’s reputation for groundbreaking innovation has somewhat dimmed.
“Apple remains financially healthy,” acknowledges Bailey, “but their once-shining reputation for innovation is gradually losing its luster.”
C NN
Be the first to comment