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

Apple Watch Ultra Night Mode Screen

Apple Watch Ultra 3 Launching Later This Year With Two Key Upgrades

Wednesday July 2, 2025 1:13 pm PDT by
The long wait for an Apple Watch Ultra 3 appears to be nearly over, and it is rumored to feature both satellite connectivity and 5G support. Apple Watch Ultra's existing Night Mode In his latest Power On newsletter, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said that the Apple Watch Ultra 3 is on track to launch this year with "significant" new features, including satellite connectivity, which would let you...
iPhone 17 Pro in Hand Feature Lowgo

iPhone 17 Pro Coming Soon With These 14 New Features

Friday July 4, 2025 1:05 pm PDT by
Apple's next-generation iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are just over two months away, and there are plenty of rumors about the devices. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models. Latest Rumors These rumors surfaced in June and July:Apple logo repositioned: Apple's logo may have a lower position on the back of the iPhone 17 Pro models, compared to previous...
iPhone 17 Pro in Hand Feature Lowgo

iPhone 17 Pro Max Battery Capacity Leaked

Thursday July 3, 2025 5:40 am PDT by
The iPhone 17 Pro Max will feature the biggest ever battery in an iPhone, according to the Weibo leaker known as "Instant Digital." In a new post, the leaker listed the battery capacities of the iPhone 11 Pro Max through to the iPhone 16 Pro Max, and added that the iPhone 17 Pro Max will feature a battery capacity of 5,000mAh: iPhone 11 Pro Max: 3,969mAh iPhone 12 Pro Max: 3,687mAh...
airpods pro 2

AirPods Pro 3 to Help Maintain Apple's Place in Earbud Market Amid Increasing Low-Cost Competition

Thursday July 3, 2025 7:25 am PDT by
Apple's position as the dominant force in the global true wireless stereo (TWS) earbud market is expected to continue through 2025, according to Counterpoint Research. The forecast outlines a 3% year-over-year increase in global TWS unit shipments for 2025, signaling a transition from rapid growth to a more mature phase for the category. While Apple is set to remain the leading brand by...
apple silicon mac lineup 2024 feature purple m5

Apple's Upcoming Macs Listed in New Report

Thursday July 3, 2025 9:09 am PDT by
AppleInsider's Marko Zivkovic today shared a list of alleged identifiers for future Mac models, which should roll out over the next year or so. The report does not reveal anything too surprising, but it does serve as further evidence that Apple is seemingly working on new models of every Mac, including the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro. Apple is...
iphone 16 pro models 1

Here's How the iPhone 17 Pro Max Will Compare to the iPhone 17 Pro

Saturday July 5, 2025 1:00 pm PDT by
Apple should unveil the iPhone 17 series in September, and there might be one bigger difference between the Pro and Pro Max models this year. As always, the Pro Max model will be larger than the Pro model:iPhone 17 Pro: 6.3-inch display iPhone 17 Pro Max: 6.9-inch displayGiven the Pro Max is physically larger than the Pro, it has more internal space, allowing for a larger battery and...

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)