Apple urges judge to end US smartphone monopoly case
Adds comment from Apple lawyer in paragraph 3
Apple argues DOJ failed to prove monopoly power
Prosecutors claim Apple limits interoperability between iPhone, third-party apps and devices
Antitrust cases against Big Tech are a bipartisan trend
By Jody Godoy
NEW YORK, Nov 20 (Reuters) -Apple AAPL.O asked a federal judge on Wednesday to dismiss the U.S. Department of Justice's case accusing the iPhone maker of unlawfully dominating the smartphone market, in the latest Big Tech antitrust showdown.
U.S. District Judge Julien Neals in Newark, New Jersey, heard arguments from lawyers for Apple who said the government's case should be dismissed on multiple grounds and asked the judge to limit the discovery process. Discovery refers to the exchange of information among parties in a case.
"The government has failed to plausibly allege that Apple has monopoly power," said Apple lawyer Devora Allon.
Prosecutors are expected to say the company locks users in and keeps competition out by limiting interoperability between the iPhone and third-party apps and devices.
Apple has moved to dismiss the case, saying its limitations on developers' access to its technology were reasonable, and that forcing it to share technology with competitors would chill innovation.
Antitrust cases against Big Tech firms are a bipartisan trend. The case against Apple began during the first presidential term of Donald Trump and was filed during the administration of President Joe Biden.
In other cases, Alphabet's GOOGL.O Google was found to have an illegal monopoly in online search, Meta Platforms META.O faces trial on claims that it squelched competition by acquiring upstart rivals, and Amazon.com AMZN.O is fighting a case over its policies toward sellers and suppliers.
But some claims like the ones at the heart of the Apple case have ultimately failed.
A judge dismissed the Federal Trade Commission's claim against Meta over the social-media platform's restrictions on third-party app developers.
In the Google search case, the judge rejected a claim that Google should have done more to accommodate advertisers on Microsoft's MSFT.O search engine Bing.
Apple cited the ruling in its own case, saying it shows that withholding access to technology should not be considered anticompetitive.
The Apple lawsuit filed in March by the DOJ and a coalition of states takes aim at restrictions and fees on app developers, and technical roadblocks to third-party devices and services - such as smart watches, digital wallets and messaging services - that would compete with its own.
If the judge finds the claims plausible, the case will be allowed to move forward.
Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York and David Shepardson in Washington
Editing by Matthew Lewis and Rod Nickel
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
