UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. APPLE INC.
2:24-cv-04055
D.N.J.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, the United States and the Attorneys General of 20 states, alleged that Apple engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain and monopolize the smartphone and performance smartphone markets in the U.S.
- Apple is accused of creating technological and contractual barriers that limit competition in areas such as super apps, cloud streaming, messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets.
- Plaintiffs claim Apple has over 65% share of the U.S. smartphone market and 70% of the performance smartphone market, arguing these are distinct antitrust markets.
- The case is at the motion to dismiss stage—Apple moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing failure to state claims for monopolization and attempted monopolization, improper market definition, lack of exclusionary conduct, lack of standing, and other grounds.
- The district court accepted the plaintiffs’ allegations as true for purposes of the motion and denied Apple’s motion to dismiss in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevant Market Definition | Smartphones and performance smartphones are proper antitrust markets, distinct from other devices. | Markets are not properly defined and are artificial. | Market definitions plausibly pled; not dismissed. |
| Exclusionary/Anticompetitive Conduct | Apple imposed technical and contractual restrictions harming competition across key app and device areas. | Actions are lawful business decisions or refusals to deal, not actionable under Sherman Act. | Sufficient anticompetitive conduct alleged. |
| Monopoly Power | Apple’s dominant market shares and barriers to entry prove monopoly power. | Apple lacks monopoly power; Samsung/Google compete strongly. | Sufficient facts showing monopoly power. |
| Standing of Plaintiff States | States have parens patriae standing due to harm to their citizens’ economic well-being. | States lack standing; injuries are derivative or insufficient. | States have standing as parens patriae. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets forth plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (applies plausibility standard to antitrust claims)
- Brown Shoe Co. v. U.S., 370 U.S. 294 (1962) (market definition by reasonable interchangeability and submarkets)
- Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985) (outlines Section 2 refusal to deal liability exception)
- United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) (defines monopoly power as power to control prices/exclude competition)
- Queen City Pizza v. Domino's Pizza, 124 F.3d 430 (3d Cir. 1997) (setting out essential elements for § 2 Sherman Act claim)
- Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2007) (monopoly power proved by direct or indirect evidence)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) (technological and contractual restrictions can be anticompetitive)
- Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993) (requires specific intent and dangerous probability for attempt to monopolize)
- Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) (states' parens patriae standing explained)