The Department of Justice's antitrust lawsuit against Apple continues to unfold, with recent developments shedding light on the case's trajectory. On November 21, 2024, Apple's lawyers argued in a New Jersey federal court that the lawsuit should be dismissed, claiming the DOJ has failed to plausibly allege that Apple has monopoly power in the smartphone market and that consumers were harmed[1].

Judge Julien Neals, overseeing the case, expressed his intention to make a ruling by January. This motion to dismiss is a common step in lawsuits, and it is likely that the case will proceed to trial, although some claims could be amended or dismissed.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2024 by the DOJ and 16 states, accuses Apple of broad anticompetitive conduct affecting various aspects of the iPhone ecosystem, including web browsers, messaging apps, digital payments, and smartwatches. The DOJ argues that Apple has made it harder for consumers to switch between smartphone platforms and has blocked the development of cloud-based streaming apps, among other allegations[1][3].

Apple has countered that the lawsuit threatens the principles that set its products apart in a competitive market. However, the DOJ emphasizes that it is not challenging Apple's design philosophy but rather its use of unfair, exclusionary methods to harm competition[2].

Recent policy changes by Apple have addressed some of the DOJ's concerns. For instance, Apple started allowing cloud-based game streaming apps on the App Store worldwide in January and opened up the iPhone's NFC chip used by Apple Pay to third-party developers in the U.S. and select other countries in August[1].

Legal experts predict a tough road ahead for the DOJ, citing a Supreme Court ruling that businesses cannot be sued under antitrust law for not helping rival companies better compete against them. The case is expected to take years to resolve, with some antitrust specialists believing Apple will likely emerge victorious[3].

Key figures in the case include Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has stated that Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market by violating federal antitrust law. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter has also been involved, drawing parallels between Apple's practices and those of Microsoft in the past[5].

The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for the tech industry, potentially spurring the next wave of innovation by preventing companies from using integration as a means to exclude competitors and limit consumer choices[2]. The case is closely watched, with its implications extending beyond Apple to the broader tech landscape.