Apple Moves to Get DoJ Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissed

In March, the United States Department of Justice launched a massive antitrust lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of anti-competitive behavior across nearly every aspect of the iPhone business.

The lawsuit, which was filed in conjunction with 16 state attorneys general, formally accused Apple of driving up smartphone prices and stifling competition through an illegal monopoly. It most prominently addressed Apple’s suppression of certain types of apps, claimed that Apple conspired to make “third-party messaging apps on the iPhone worse,” and blocked third-party smartwatches and payment apps from fully functioning on the iPhone.

This Limited-Time Microsoft Office Deal Gets You Lifetime Access for Just $39

Sick and tired of subscriptions? Get a lifetime license for Microsoft Office Home and Business 2021 at a great price!

However, those were only the main points. The omnibus case was the culmination of a five-year investigation, and it also included several other claims that felt like it was just throwing everything at the wall to see what would stick. For instance, it accused Apple of using CarPlay to gain “dominance over the automotive industry,” which seems like a pretty big stretch considering how poorly received CarPlay 2.0 has been and the fact that one of the nation’s largest automakers is abandoning it entirely.

So, it’s no surprise that Apple is fighting back. In May, Apple filed a letter to the court claiming that the case “lies well beyond the outer limits of antitrust law” and that the Department of Justice is trying to “forge a new theory of antitrust liability that no court has recognized.” Now, it’s following that up with a formal motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit entirely.

The Government Wants a ‘Judicial Redesign’ of the iPhone

In the introduction to its motion, Apple reiterates its earlier claim that the Government is trying to move the goalposts and create a new “theory of antitrust liability” while adding that it’s asking the court to “sanction a judicial redesign” of the iPhone.

The Government asks this Court to endorse a theory of antitrust liability that no court has ever recognized and to sanction a judicial redesign of one of the most innovative and consumer-friendly products ever made: iPhone. Apple has invested billions of dollars to create a revolutionary, cutting-edge product and to distinguish iPhone in a fiercely competitive smartphone market through consumer-oriented features.

The motion goes on to call out the “false premise” that the iPhone has succeeded not on its own merits but merely because Apple has cheated by intentionally creating a worse user experience to stifle competition.

This lawsuit is based on the false premise that iPhone’s success has come not through building a superior product that consumers trust and love, but through Apple’s intentional degradation of iPhone to block purported competitive threats. That outlandish claim bears no relation to reality.

Apple lists five specific reasons “why the Government’s ill-conceived complaint should be dismissed,”

1. Apple has not engaged in exclusionary conduct. Apple claims the notion that it has excluded third-party developers doesn’t hold water because no company is legally obligated to work with anyone it chooses not to. Apple cites a Supreme Court ruling that states that “as a general rule, businesses are free to choose the parties with whom they will deal, as well as the prices, terms, and conditions of that dealing,” and that it would be absurd to force competitors to share their technology, as it would risk “chilling the very innovation the Government claims to protect.
2. Even if Apple’s conduct were actionable, the complaint does not connect that conduct to any anticompetitive effects in the alleged smartphone markets. This is a legalese way of saying that the DoJ has failed to make a case that consumer choice is restricted by Apple’s approach to the App Store, messaging apps, smartwatches, or digital wallets. “The opposite is much more plausible: Users unhappy with Apple’s reasonable policies on third-party access can and do switch away to competitors’ devices, where those limits do not exist.”
3. Apple is not a monopolist. Apple challenges the idea that it doesn’t face stiff competition from the likes of Google and Samsung, considering that the two companies represent the “owner of the world’s dominant operating system” and “the global leader in smartphone sales,” and adds that the comparison to the late-1990s Microsoft is unreasonable as “Apple’s share of global smartphone sales pales next to Microsoft’s then-95% share of the worldwide operating system market.”
4. The Government’s attempted monopolization claims should be dismissed because the complaint’s conclusory allegations of specific intent are insufficient. In short, Apple claims the Government hasn’t proven that Apple has any intention to even try to create a monopoly, much less that it has succeeded in doing so.
5. The Government’s attempt to broaden its case by making cursory references to numerous Apple products and services fails baseline federal pleading requirements. Essentially, the DoJ’s attempt to toss everything into the case makes it too broad and muddies the waters.
   

For a successful antitrust lawsuit, the Government needs to prove that Apple engaged in anticompetitive conduct that tangibly harmed consumers and that Apple actually is a monopoly in the US. Apple maintains that the DOJ has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for even one of these claims, much less all of them.

In the motion, Apple requests oral arguments to discuss the facts and arguments in person. After that, the government will be given a few weeks to file its opposition to the motion, after which Apple has another month or so to respond to that, which will likely be followed by a hearing. That means we may not even see a ruling on Apple’s motion to dismiss until early next year, and should that motion be denied, the actual case could easily drag on into 2028 and beyond.