DOJ Says Apple Used an Illegal Monopoly to Lock In the iPhone.
Two Years Later, the Case Is Now in Federal Discovery.
On March 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice and 16 state attorneys general filed the landmark Section 2 Sherman Act case United States and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.in the federal district court in Newark, New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Apple unlawfully monopolizes the U.S. smartphone market by degrading rival apps, blocking “super apps,” suppressing cloud gaming, hobbling non-Apple smartwatches, and excluding rival digital wallets.
On June 30, 2025, Judge Julien Xavier Nealsdenied Apple’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the government had adequately pleaded each theory of harm and that Apple must answer in discovery. In early 2026 the court appointed three special discovery masters to manage the volume of documents. The case is now in active discovery. Trial is widely expected in 2027 or 2028.
Apple denies the allegations and is defending each conduct theory. The DOJ has not yet sought structural remedies on the record; if the United States prevails at trial, the available remedies range from injunctions over specific conduct (forced interoperability, App Store fee caps, default-browser/wallet choice) to behavioral consent decrees of the kind that resolved United States v. Microsoft in 2001.
- March 21, 2024Filed — U.S. District Court, D. NJ (Newark)DOJ + 16 state AGs sued Apple under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. — DOJ OPA.
- June 30, 2025Motion to dismiss denied — Hon. Julien X. NealsThe court found each of the five anticompetitive-conduct theories sufficiently pleaded. Discovery opens. — Mintz / National Law Review.
- 3Special discovery masters appointed — early 2026Court-appointed masters managing the document-production volume in U.S. v. Apple and a parallel consumer class action. — MLex.
- 30%Standard App Store commission — the structural backdropApple takes a 30% cut of in-app purchases and charges developers $99/year. The fee is not the heart of the DOJ case, but it is the economic context — and the parallel Epic v. Apple ruling is reshaping it.
- 16+1Co-plaintiffs — state AGs and the District of ColumbiaDOJ Antitrust Division plus AGs from CA, CT, IL, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, RI, TN, VT, WI, and the District of Columbia. Indiana later joined.
1 · Messaging degradation. Apple is alleged to have intentionally degraded the way iMessage handles Android messages (the “green-bubble” experience), suppressing rich-text features, group-chat reliability, and image quality to make switching to a non-Apple device socially costly — especially among younger users.
2 · Super-apps blocking. DOJ alleges Apple has used App Store review rules to block “super-app” architectures that would let users run a stack of mini-apps inside a single shell — the WeChat / Line model. A working super app would make the underlying smartphone OS less important, eroding iPhone lock-in.
3 · Cloud gaming. Apple is alleged to have blocked or hobbled cloud-streaming game services on iOS, requiring each title to be submitted individually rather than allowing a single “Netflix for games” client. The effect, DOJ argues, is to preserve iPhone’s hardware advantage in mobile gaming.
4 · Smartwatches. Apple is alleged to have degraded interoperability between iPhone and non-Apple smartwatches, restricting notification access, message-reply, and watchOS-style background processing for rival devices, while keeping the equivalent capabilities native on Apple Watch.
5 · Digital wallets. Apple is alleged to have kept rival digital wallets and tap-to-pay services off the iPhone’s NFC chip, channeling tap-to-pay through Apple Pay and the Wallet app and collecting the associated card-network fees.
“Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market not by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law.”
DOJ Antitrust Division · Complaint, U.S. v. Apple Inc. (D.N.J. March 21, 2024)
Apple’s motion to dismiss argued that the DOJ’s “performance smartphone” market definition was gerrymandered, that Apple has no duty to deal with competitors, and that each conduct theory is, on Apple’s reading, protected business judgment. Judge Neals rejected each argument on June 30, 2025 — ruling, in effect, that the government had plausibly alleged a viable Section 2 claim and was entitled to test it through discovery.
Market definition adequately pleaded. The court accepted, for purposes of the motion, the DOJ’s narrower “performance smartphone” market definition rather than collapsing into Apple’s preferred all-handsets market — the latter would have made monopoly power a non-starter.
Monopoly power adequately pleaded. Apple’s U.S. share, and the structural switching costs the complaint describes, were sufficient at the pleading stage to support an inference of monopoly power in the relevant market.
Each conduct theory survived. Messaging, super apps, cloud gaming, smartwatches, and digital wallets — each cleared the bar separately. Apple did not knock any of them out at the pleading stage.
The court did not decide the case. Denying a motion to dismiss is a low bar — the government’s allegations are taken as true. The full evidentiary record gets built in discovery, and the merits get decided after that. None of the conduct findings is final.
Today, the Justice Department and 16 state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets in violation of federal antitrust law.
Apple is the largest U.S. company by market capitalization. A structural ruling against Apple would carry a precedent far beyond smartphones — into the entire walled-garden / app-store model that defines the modern mobile economy.
The App Store commission is a national-scale tax on app developers. Apple’s standard 30% take of in-app revenue is a load-bearing piece of the iPhone economics and a flashpoint with every developer above a certain size. The parallel Epic Games v. Apple ruling has already forced Apple to allow external-purchase links in the U.S.; the DOJ case targets a wider conduct surface.
Interoperability is the available remedy lever. If the government wins, the court does not have to break Apple up. Microsoft 2001-style behavioral remedies — default-app choice, mandatory interoperability APIs, fee caps, audit requirements — are the more probable outcome.
The political backdrop has shifted. The case was filed under the Biden DOJ. It is now being prosecuted by Acting AG Todd Blanche’s DOJ, which has continued each of the major Big Tech antitrust cases inherited from the prior administration. The case is not at risk of being voluntarily dismissed by the United States.
The DOJ’s Apple complaint is the most aggressive antitrust filing against a tech company since the Microsoft case in 1998. Five conduct theories. Sixteen state AGs. A Section 2 monopoly-maintenance claim. Apple has to answer all of it.
The Trump administration's stated antitrust posture on Big Tech — the political environment in which the Apple case is now being prosecuted.
The most consequential U.S. antitrust case in 25 years just survived its motion to dismiss. United States v. Apple is now in full federal discovery in Newark, with three special masters managing the document production. The trial will not happen this year, but every document Apple produces over the next twelve months will shape what the smartphone market looks like in the decade ahead.