Legal Experts Suggest Justice Department Unlikely to Win Antitrust Suit Against Apple

In the wake of yesterday's announcement that the U.S. Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and a number of book publishers over alleged price fixing, CNET notes that the government may have a hard time winning its case against Apple. The publishers may, however, find themselves on the losing end of the case should they be unwilling to settle.

"It's a harder case against Apple than the publishers," says Geoffrey Manne, who teaches antitrust law at the Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon and runs the International Center for Law and Economics.

One reason lies in the Justice Department's 36-page complaint, which recounts how publishers met over breakfast in a London hotel and dinners at Manhattan's posh Picholine restaurant, which boasts a "Best of Award of Excellence" from Wine Spectator magazine. The key point is that Apple wasn't present.

But even the case against the publishers is not a sure thing for the Department of Justice. Some experts suggest that even amid claims that the publishers met to discuss a shift to an agency model being championed by Apple, the publishers may not be found guilty of antitrust violations.

Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that pricing arrangements among competitors are not automatically considered to be violations of antitrust law, and that the setting of minimum retail pricing by manufacturers is a permitted policy.

ibooks ipad hand
Several of the publishers involved in the lawsuit have already settled, but Macmillan and Penguin are holding out along with Apple to fight the case. Almost immediately following the filing of the Department of Justice's lawsuit, a number of states filed their own claims against the companies, citing customer overcharges of over $100 million since the move to an agency model of pricing. Regulators in other countries are also reportedly looking at whether they wish to take action on the matter.

Popular Stories

iOS 26

iOS 26.3 and iOS 26.4 Will Add These New Features to Your iPhone

Tuesday February 3, 2026 7:47 am PST by
While the iOS 26.3 Release Candidate is now available ahead of a public release, the first iOS 26.4 beta is likely still at least a week away. Following beta testing, iOS 26.4 will likely be released to the general public in March or April. Below, we have recapped known or rumored iOS 26.3 and iOS 26.4 features so far. iOS 26.3 iPhone to Android Transfer Tool iOS 26.3 makes it easier...
imac video apple feature

Apple Makes Its Second-Biggest Acquisition Ever

Tuesday February 3, 2026 12:45 pm PST by
Apple recently acquired Israeli startup Q.ai for close to $2 billion, according to Financial Times sources. That would make this Apple's second-biggest acquisition ever, after it paid $3 billion for the popular headphone maker Beats in 2014. This is also the largest known Apple acquisition since the company purchased Intel's smartphone modem business and patents for $1 billion in 2019....
Apple Logo Zoomed

Tim Cook Teases Plans for Apple's Upcoming 50th Anniversary

Thursday February 5, 2026 12:54 pm PST by
Apple turns 50 this year, and its CEO Tim Cook has promised to celebrate the milestone. The big day falls on April 1, 2026. "I've been unusually reflective lately about Apple because we have been working on what do we do to mark this moment," Cook told employees today, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. "When you really stop and pause and think about the last 50 years, it makes your heart ...
Apple TV Color

Apple TV Announces 12 New Shows and Films Coming This Year

Wednesday February 4, 2026 12:29 pm PST by
Apple on Tuesday previewed 12 new shows and films that will be premiering on the Apple TV streaming service throughout 2026. The new series: Imperfect Women — March 18, 2026 Margo's Got Money Troubles — April 15, 2026 Widow's Bay — April 29, 2026 Maximum Pleasure Guaranteed — May 20, 2026 Cape Fear — June 5, 2026 Lucky — July 15, 2026 The new films: Eternity — ...
iphone 16 pro colors 1

Apple Begins Selling Refurbished iPhone 16 and iPhone 16 Pro Models at Lower Prices

Wednesday February 4, 2026 7:44 am PST by
Apple today began selling certified refurbished iPhone 16, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro, and iPhone 16 Pro Max models on its online store in the U.S., with prices discounted by 12% to 22% compared to Apple's current or former pricing for the devices. Here were Apple's starting prices when the devices launched in September 2024: iPhone 16: $799 iPhone 16 Plus: $899 iPhone 16 Pro:...

Top Rated Comments

diamond.g Avatar
180 months ago
So they weren't even present, and the publishers control the price? Umm.... why is Apple being sued again?

I thought it was due to the "Most Favored Nation" clause?
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
LaWally Avatar
180 months ago
So they weren't even present, and the publishers control the price? Umm.... why is Apple being sued again?
Apple is being sued because it has agreements with the publishers who are accused of trying to use the agency model to allegedly price fix and is therefore considered complicit in the act. Apple is in effect "aiding and abetting" the alleged price fixing in the government's eyes by providing a vehicle through which the publishers can price fix.
Score: 7 Votes (Like | Disagree)
spiderman0616 Avatar
180 months ago
If Apple or the other publishers lose this battle, you are going to see Amazon being turned into the Walmart of e books. They can just undercut like crazy until everyone else shrivels and dies. It's suing one problem and protecting a whole other problem.

I personally like the agency model because it actually supports the industry. I'm not defending Apple's methods, because I still don't know if they're guilty of anything illegal or not, but I'm just saying that I'm not in favor of paying less for something if in turn it kills the company providing the content to me.
Score: 7 Votes (Like | Disagree)
IJ Reilly Avatar
180 months ago
The MFN clause itself is not a problem. The DOJ was alleging that Apple participated in a conspiracy to engage in price fixing. If they participated in a meeting where they and the publishers discussed a strategy to engage in price fixing, that could be a problem.

However, it would not be a problem if Apple simply individually negotiated terms with each publisher, even if the publishers told Apple what other deals they received, or if Apple told the publishers what other publishers were willing to accept. Unilateral action is OK, and revealing other deals is a legitimate attempt to gain leverage. That's the crux of Apple's defense in the separate class action lawsuit.

QFT. The CNET article is heavily spun, which is not surprising considering who wrote it. Legal analysts are going to be all over the map at this point, if only because they've seen only the government's complaint, not Apple's or the publisher's responses. But if you quote libertarian think tanks you are going to get predicable results.

Obviously it's the publishers who are at the pointiest end of the stick, but I don't think Apple needs to have been present at any meetings to be found a party to price fixing. It's going to be difficult to claim that all of these publishers came to the same terms with Apple by mere coincidence. The one quoted email from Jobs pretty much refutes that theory anyway.

All antitrust cases are difficult for the government to prosecute. Citing the DoJ's failures in recent history isn't telling close to the whole story, since most of these cases never make it to trial. They are overwhelming settled out of court by consent decrees, in which the government typically gets at least some of the changes they are seeking. Mr. McCullagh doesn't share that little factoid with us because it doesn't make the government look blithering.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Amazing Iceman Avatar
180 months ago
Another waste of taxpayer dollars... :rolleyes:

Yep. The DOJ should be more concerned about regulating the price of gasoline and food, so we the consumers don't have to keep paying those outrageous prices. People can choose to buy or not to buy a book, but people have no other choice than to buy gas and food.

What happened to paying under $1 per gallon?
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Evan_11 Avatar
180 months ago
They essentially killed book stores buy undercutting them so there are few left, and did the same to ebooks with 90% of the market because they were selling below cost.

Amazon didn't kill the small book stores. Barnes & Noble and Borders did. Amazon then killed Barnes & Noble and Borders.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)