A US judge denies Apple's motion to dismiss the DOJ antitrust lawsuit, filed in March 2024, that accuses Apple of unlawfully dominating the US smartphone market

not because it is competing on the merits. These actions are anticompetitive and illegal. https://oag.ca.gov/... [image] @sherman1890 : Apple court aligns itself with U.S. Airways, 2022 WL 874945 (SDNY), holding that 2 or more firms can monopolize the same market. That leaves open the question whether monopolization requires a dominant firm. ct reserves this issue for summary judgment. Abigail Slater / @aagslater : ATR gets a SECOND WIN today! Judge Neals denied Apple's motion to dismiss and rejected their arguments that the “refusal to deal” doctrine applies in this case—citing Google Ad-Tech's decision. [image] Doha Mekki / @dohamekki : @JusticeATR's staff really are the crown jewel of DOJ. In just the past *week* they: ✅ Beat Apple's quest to bounce a sweeping monopolization case ✅ Beat Visa's efforts to avoid discovery and trial in a case about its debit monopoly and agreements to co-opt potential fintech Forums: r/apple : Apple loses bid to dismiss US smartphone monopoly case Msmash / Slashdot : Apple Loses Bid To Dismiss US Smartphone Monopoly Case MacRumors Forums : DOJ's iPhone Monopoly Case Against Apple Moves Forward

Reuters 2025-07-01 Jody Godoy

Context & Ripple Effects

The case began with the DOJ’s claim that Apple restricted rivals’ access to iPhone capabilities and made device switching harder, allegations at the center of the government’s 2024 complaint. Apple later argued the pleading did not establish anticompetitive conduct and sought dismissal in its August 2024 motion.

The ruling does not decide whether Apple has monopoly power or whether the alleged conduct violated antitrust law. It matters because it preserves the DOJ’s ability to test those claims on a fuller factual record rather than ending the case at the pleading stage.

First-order effects

Apple must continue defending the DOJ’s smartphone-market case; its bid to end the suit before fact-finding has failed.
The DOJ clears an early procedural hurdle, and the court’s rejection of Apple’s refusal-to-deal argument keeps the government’s theory of liability in play.

Second-order effects

The case can now move toward evidence gathering around iPhone access, interoperability, and switching frictions, increasing scrutiny of the business practices identified in the original complaint.
Developers, device makers, and service providers whose products depend on iPhone access may become more consequential sources of evidence as the parties develop the factual record.

Third-order effects

If the DOJ ultimately prevails, the case could sharpen the limits on how a smartphone platform can use control over device features and ecosystem access to protect its position.
Even without a final merits ruling, survival past dismissal makes platform-design choices more exposed to antitrust review where they can be framed as excluding rivals rather than improving the product.

The trend: The ruling is part of a broader push to test whether platform control over technical access and user switching can constitute exclusionary conduct under antitrust law.

Discussion

@marypcbuk Mary Branscombe on bluesky
security matters. that's not why Apple takes a 30% vig at the app store and won't allow other browser engines
@marypcbuk Mary Branscombe on bluesky
I wish the DoJ a very ‘learning from the EU/DMA on dealing with how Apple reacts to regulation and losing lawsuits’ [embedded post]
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
And there it is. In the fifth major tech antitrust lawsuit brought by the US Govt (v Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google-2x), Apple has lost its motion to dismiss, “For the reasons set forth below, Apple's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 86) is DENIED.” [image]
@vidushi_law Vidushi Dyall on x
The DOJ v. Apple antitrust case survived a motion to dismiss. This doesn't mean the court has blessed the DOJ's theories. They will require a fact-intensive inquiry, but when looking at them in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the ct found them plausible enough to proceed
@khushitavasant @khushitavasant on x
Almost 6 months late, but a New Jersey just finally ruled and denied @Apple's motion to dismiss DOJ's monopolization suit. Broadly, court finds refusal to deal doctrine doesn't apply to Apple's alleged conduct & US states have standing to bring claims. @JusticeATR #antitrust
@joellthayer Joel Thayer on x
This was a no brainer because @JusticeATR has an extremely strong case against @apple's blatant antitrust violations and anti-competitive behavior. With @AAGSlater at the helm, we have a winning team to ensure Justice is done!
@agrobbonta Rob Bonta on x
Apple is dominating the market because it has created a monopoly that insulates itself from competitors and makes it hard for consumers to leave — not because it is competing on the merits. These actions are anticompetitive and illegal. https://oag.ca.gov/... [image]
@sherman1890 @sherman1890 on x
Apple court aligns itself with U.S. Airways, 2022 WL 874945 (SDNY), holding that 2 or more firms can monopolize the same market. That leaves open the question whether monopolization requires a dominant firm. ct reserves this issue for summary judgment.
@aagslater Abigail Slater on x
ATR gets a SECOND WIN today! Judge Neals denied Apple's motion to dismiss and rejected their arguments that the “refusal to deal” doctrine applies in this case—citing Google Ad-Tech's decision. [image]
@dohamekki Doha Mekki on x
@JusticeATR's staff really are the crown jewel of DOJ. In just the past *week* they: ✅ Beat Apple's quest to bounce a sweeping monopolization case ✅ Beat Visa's efforts to avoid discovery and trial in a case about its debit monopoly and agreements to co-opt potential fintech
r/apple r on reddit
Apple loses bid to dismiss US smartphone monopoly case

Chronicles