Apple Files Motion to Dismiss Department of Justice Antitrust Lawsuit

Apple today filed a motion to dismiss its ongoing lawsuit with the United States Department of Justice, a standard step in the litigation process. In its motion to dismiss, Apple argues that the government's complaint has not demonstrated anticompetitive conduct, anticompetitive effect that harms consumers, or that Apple is a monopoly power in the U.S. smartphone market. The government needs to prove all three of these claims for a successful antitrust lawsuit.

Apple vs DOJ Feature
For the anticompetitive allegation, the DoJ lawsuit focused on third-party access to Apple services and features, but Apple argues that there is longstanding Supreme Court precedent that companies can set the terms and conditions of their third-party dealings. Apple claims that the DoJ is attempting to force it to spend money to develop tools for big business competitors, which could have a "chilling" effect on innovation. The DoJ suggested, for example, that Apple should have developed an iMessage app for Android.

iMessage is Apple's proprietary, innovative messaging service that Apple created to competitively differentiate iPhone. Under the Government's view, companies like Apple should face antitrust liability for not expending the resources, cost, and time to develop versions of proprietary products and services for competitors' devices.

Apple points out that the DoJ's complaint does not explain how Apple's alleged limiting of "super apps," cloud streaming apps, digital wallets, messaging apps, and competing smartwatches has harmed consumers or impacted consumer choice about which smartphone to purchase. For a successful antitrust lawsuit, the DoJ needs to prove that Apple's actions hurt consumers and stifle competition, and the DoJ argues that Apple has "locked" customers into its ecosystem.

It is implausible to claim, as the Government does, that Apple has deterred any customers from switching to Google or Samsung because of its policies with respect to "super apps," cloud gaming, smartwatches, or anything else. 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.

Apple argues that it is not a monopolist because it faces competition from companies like Google and Samsung, preventing the government from establishing the "typical hallmarks of monopoly power." Apple does not have enough U.S. smartphone marketshare to make the monopoly claim easy for the government to establish. The DoJ has compared Apple to Microsoft, but Microsoft had a 95 percent share of the operating system market when it faced an antitrust lawsuit, while Apple's is closer to 65 percent.

Apple further suggests that the DoJ is aiming to have the court establish a "new theory of antitrust liability" that no prior court has recognized and that would provide "unprecedented authority to control Apple design choices." Apple says that the DoJ is targeting the very features that distinguish iPhones from competing devices, and if the DoJ ultimately wins the case, courts would need to "oversee product-design and policy choices," which they are not equipped to do.

A motion to dismiss limits the information that Apple can provide to dispute the DoJ's claims, and rulings often favor plaintiffs. The allegations that the DoJ made are assumed to be true at this stage, and Apple needs to prove that the claims fail as a matter of law. For this reason, the lawsuit is likely to progress, though claims could be narrowed and there is a chance for dismissal.

If the court rules in the Department of Justice's favor on the dismissal, there will be many future chances for Apple to sway the court because this is a legal battle that will span years.

After Apple's motion to dismiss, the government has until September 12 to file an opposition brief. From there, Apple will file a reply brief on October 10, and there could be a possible hearing after that. A ruling on the motion to dismiss is expected in late 2024 or early 2025.

Should the government win, Apple will file an answer to the initial complaint, leading to a discovery period where both parties provide documents, expert testimony, and depositions, which can last for over a year. A summary judgment will follow, which is where Apple can make a stronger case, and that might not happen until 2027. Should the case ultimately go to trial, a trial could take place sometime in 2028, or even later.

For a refresher on the DoJ's antitrust claims against Apple, we have a dedicated guide that highlights everything you need to know about the U.S. vs. Apple legal fight.

Popular Stories

iphone 16 pro ghost hand

5 Reasons to Skip This Year's iPhone 17 Pro

Thursday July 10, 2025 4:54 am PDT by
Apple will launch its new iPhone 17 series in two months, and the iPhone 17 Pro models are expected to get a new design for the rear casing and the camera area. But more significant changes to the lineup are not expected until next year, when the iPhone 18 models arrive. If you're thinking of trading in your iPhone for this year's latest, consider the following features rumored to be coming...
apple wallet drivers license feature iPhone 15 pro

Apple Says iPhone Driver's Licenses Will Expand to These 8 U.S. States

Tuesday July 8, 2025 11:26 am PDT by
In select U.S. states, residents can add their driver's license or state ID to the Wallet app on the iPhone and Apple Watch, providing a convenient and contactless way to display proof of identity or age at select airports and businesses, and in select apps. Unfortunately, this feature continues to roll out very slowly since it was announced in 2021, with only nine U.S. states, Puerto Rico,...
macbook pro blue green

M5 MacBook Pro No Longer Coming in 2025

Thursday July 10, 2025 12:38 pm PDT by
Apple does not plan to refresh any Macs with updated M5 chips in 2025, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. Updated MacBook Air and MacBook Pro models are now planned for the first half of 2026. Gurman previously said that Apple would debut the M5 MacBook Pro models in late 2025, but his newest report suggests that Apple is "considering" pushing them back to 2026. Apple is now said to be...
iPhone 17 Pro in Hand Feature Lowgo

Leaker Reveals Amount of RAM in iPhone 17 Through iPhone 17 Pro Max

Wednesday July 9, 2025 8:08 am PDT by
Three out of four iPhone 17 models will feature more RAM than the equivalent iPhone 16 models, according to a new leak that aligns with previous rumors. The all-new iPhone 17 Air, the iPhone 17 Pro, and the iPhone 17 Pro Max will each be equipped with 12GB of RAM, according to Fixed Focus Digital, an account with more than two million followers on Chinese social media platform Weibo. The...
iPhone 17 Pro in Hand Feature Lowgo

iPhone 17 Pro to Reverse iPhone X Design Decision

Monday July 7, 2025 9:46 am PDT by
Since the iPhone X in 2017, all of Apple's highest-end iPhone models have featured either stainless steel or titanium frames, but it has now been rumored that this design decision will be coming to an end with the iPhone 17 Pro models later this year. In a post on Chinese social media platform Weibo today, the account Instant Digital said that the iPhone 17 Pro models will have an aluminum...
apple tv 4k new orange

New Apple TV Expected Later This Year With These New Features

Saturday July 12, 2025 3:09 pm PDT by
A new Apple TV is expected to be released later this year, and a handful of new features and changes have been rumored for the device. Below, we recap what to expect from the next Apple TV, according to rumors. Rumors Faster Wi-Fi Support The next Apple TV will be equipped with Apple's own combined Wi-Fi and Bluetooth chip, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. He said the chip supports ...
Foldable iPhone 2023 Feature 1

Foldable iPhone Display Production Begins Ahead of Launch Next Year

Wednesday July 9, 2025 10:59 pm PDT by
Production of foldable OLED displays for Apple's first foldable iPhone have begun ahead of its expected launch next year, Korea's ETNews reports. The first foldable iPhone's displays are being produced by Samsung Display, who are establishing a production line dedicated to the upcoming Apple device its A3 factory in Asan, Chungcheongnam-do. The production line will make displays exclusively...
iphone 16 pro pro max

iPhone 17 Pro Models With BOE Displays Will Be Sold in China Only

Thursday July 10, 2025 11:59 pm PDT by
iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max models with displays made by BOE will be sold exclusively in China, according to a new report. Last week, it emerged that Chinese display manufacturer BOE was aggressively ramping up its OLED production capacity for future iPhone models as part of a plan to recapture a major role in Apple's supply chain. Now, tech news aggregator Jukan Choi reports...

Top Rated Comments

platinumaqua Avatar
12 months ago
It would be news if Apple didn't file to dismiss the lawsuit.
Score: 14 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Mrkevinfinnerty Avatar
12 months ago
Apple: Hey DOJ lets dismiss this suit


DOJ:

Score: 10 Votes (Like | Disagree)
citysnaps Avatar
12 months ago

It's not mentioned in the lawsuit, but I can't help but think Apple's force push of eSIM in the US is increase friction to make switching to Android less appealing. The easy transfer of eSIM function (without needing to use carrier customer support/website) only works among iPhones.
In general... the Apple user experience was built upon reducing friction for its customers using their products. That goes back to early Steve Jobs days. A smart philosophy and a good thing.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
spazzcat Avatar
12 months ago

Don't do it DOJ! Hold Apple's feet to the fire!
All this lawsuit will do is make lawyers richer.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
spazzcat Avatar
12 months ago

Apple: Hey DOJ lets dismiss this suit


DOJ:


Its not up to the DOJ.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Kirkster Avatar
12 months ago

"It is implausible to claim, as the Government does, that Apple has deterred any customers from switching to Google or Samsung because of its policies with respect to "super apps," cloud gaming, smartwatches, or anything else. 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."

Similar could be said about Microsoft in the 1990s. Customers could've switched to Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, DR-OS, etc. for non-Windows computers/operating systems, or switched to other non-MS products like Netscape Navigator for browsers. That didn't stop the DOJ. Simply having alternatives does not negate antitrust laws.
What was the combined market share of all of those alternative OSes in 1998? yea, less than 10%. Far cry from from Google and Apple duking it out today for market share around 50/50…
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)