Sources: the US DOJ is in the early stages of drafting a potential antitrust complaint against Apple but has not decided whether or when to sue the company
Justice Department lawyers are in the early stages of drafting a potential antitrust complaint against Apple, according to a person …
PoliticoJosh Sisco
Context & Ripple Effects
The DOJ’s Apple scrutiny had already progressed from a possible App Store investigation involving state attorneys general to a 2021 decision delay tied to budget constraints. This report marks the move into complaint preparation, even though the department had not committed to filing.
That internal work later led to a 2024 case described as targeting strategies protecting the iPhone’s dominance, and the parties were discussing a settlement by 2026. The arc shows how a competition inquiry can remain unresolved for years before reaching a courtroom or negotiated outcome.
First-order effects
DOJ lawyers begin converting their Apple inquiry into a potential legal case, putting Apple under more concrete federal antitrust scrutiny without yet creating a filed action.
Because the DOJ has not decided whether or when to sue, Apple faces preparatory legal exposure rather than immediate court-imposed obligations.
Second-order effects
The earlier budget-driven delay means the DOJ’s enforcement timetable, not merely the substance of its inquiry, determines when Apple and affected markets receive clarity.
The drafting process creates the foundation for the later 2024 lawsuit, shifting the dispute from investigative uncertainty toward litigation over the iPhone’s competitive position.
Third-order effects
The progression from an App Store-focused inquiry to a case concerning iPhone dominance points to broader ecosystem-level scrutiny of how major platforms protect their core products.
The years between inquiry, drafting, filing, and later settlement discussions indicate that antitrust enforcement against large technology companies is becoming a long-duration regulatory and legal process.
The trend: US antitrust enforcement is increasingly examining how platform companies use connected products and distribution systems to defend core-market dominance.
Scoop: DOJ in beginning stage of drafting an antitrust complaint against Apple, and could sue as early as this year. A case could include both App Store stuff and other issues around hardware access, ie the complaint from Tile https://www.politico.com/...
Politico reporting Justice Department could file an antitrust complaint against Apple by end. Outside of grabbing headlines and increasing anxiety for Apple investors, I don't see meaningful risk to Apples business.
Based on the judge's ruling, it seems unlikely that Tile's complaint (re: AirTags) would fare any better (she ruled Apple didn't have a monopoly, wasn't an essential platform...but still should provide payment alternatives under CA's law) https://twitter.com/...
That verdict is important because it sets precedent around the App Store which I see as the most vulnerable Apple business when it comes to regulations.
As @joshua_sisco notes, many of the potential issues here were litigated against Apple in the Epic case last year, which is being appealed. From a resource-allocation strategy, it probably makes sense for DOJ to watch how those appeals go before plunging ahead w/ similar args. ht…
I believe Anti-trust claims related to hardware practices are harder to prove because consumers are not forced to buy hardware, only the services on top of the hardware.
“To date, much of the attention on a potential Justice Department case against Apple has focused on its App Store, the only way for users to download applications on iPhones and iPads.” https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...