Apple Antitrust Lawsuit: DOJ Claims, Market Scope, and Impact

The Apple antitrust lawsuit is a federal monopolization case brought in March 2024 by the U.S. Department of Justice and attorneys general from sixteen states and the District of Columbia, accusing Apple of illegally locking consumers and developers into the iPhone ecosystem. The case, United States and State of New Jersey, et al. v. Apple Inc. (No. 2:24-cv-04055), is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In June 2025, Judge Julien Xavier Neals refused to dismiss any of the government’s claims, and as of mid-2026 the parties are fighting through discovery with no trial date set.¹

What Apple Is Accused of Doing

The complaint is brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The government alleges Apple maintains a monopoly in two U.S. markets — “smartphones” and “performance smartphones” — by using its control over app distribution and proprietary technical interfaces to, in the DOJ’s words, “delay, degrade, or outright block” technologies that would make it easier for people to switch to a competing phone. The theory is that Apple competes less by making better products than by making it painful to leave.²

The complaint focuses on five categories of conduct:

Restricting “super apps” that bundle broad functionality into a single program, which would reduce users’ reliance on native iPhone features.
Suppressing cloud-based gaming services that would let consumers play high-quality games without needing the latest, most expensive iPhone hardware.
Degrading the quality and security of messages sent between iPhones and non-Apple devices to keep users tied to iMessage.
Hampering third-party smartwatches paired with iPhones by blocking reliable Bluetooth connections, notification responses, and shared cellular connectivity.
Blocking rival digital wallets from using the iPhone’s NFC tap-to-pay hardware, locking users into Apple Pay.

The complaint also challenges Apple’s App Store commission of up to 30 percent on app and in-app purchase revenue, alleging Apple protects those fees by blocking alternative app stores and payment processors.²³

Who Sued Apple

The lawsuit was filed jointly by the DOJ and a coalition of state attorneys general. The plaintiff states are New Jersey, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.⁴ New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Tennessee also bring claims under their own state antitrust laws, giving the case seven counts in total.¹

The Fight Over How the Market Is Defined

Market definition is often the whole ballgame in an antitrust case, and this one is no exception. The DOJ defines the market narrowly. It argues “performance smartphones” — a category that excludes budget devices — is a distinct market where Apple holds roughly 70 percent share, and puts Apple’s share of the broader U.S. smartphone market at approximately 65 percent.¹

Apple counters that the “performance smartphone” category is an arbitrary invention designed to inflate its apparent dominance. The company points to Samsung, Google, and Xiaomi as strong competitors that collectively hold about 80 percent of the global smartphone market, and notes Apple’s global share has never exceeded 25 percent.⁵ Apple also invokes the Supreme Court’s decision in Verizon v. Trinko, which held that antitrust law does not require a company to design its products to help rivals.⁶

Where the Case Stands

Apple moved to dismiss the entire case in August 2024, arguing the government failed to allege exclusionary conduct or substantial anticompetitive effects, that the state plaintiffs lacked standing, and that its ecosystem restrictions are lawful refusals to share proprietary technology.¹

On June 30, 2025, Judge Neals denied the motion in full. Every one of the seven counts survived. He accepted the government’s market definitions at the pleading stage, finding that “performance smartphones” constitute a “distinct submarket for antitrust purposes” based on differences in price, quality, and features such as NFC antennas. He found the complaint adequately alleged monopoly power, pointing to Apple’s market share figures and “significant entry barriers” like high switching costs. On Apple’s argument that Samsung and Google are strong competitors, the judge said those were “arguments that are better suited for the summary judgment stage.”¹⁷

The case then moved into discovery, and it has been contentious. The DOJ asked Judge Neals to intervene in February 2026 to resolve disputes over the scope and process of exchanging evidence, accusing Apple of manufacturing discovery “emergencies” of its own making.⁸ In May 2026, Apple sought documents from 14 federal agencies, including members of the intelligence community, about how they evaluate and purchase smartphones; the government resisted, calling the requests “irrelevant, overly burdensome, and likely to implicate privileged or classified materials.”⁹

Apple has said publicly that “we believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will continue to vigorously fight it in court.”⁷ When the suit was first filed, the company said it “threatens who we are.”¹⁰

Did the Trump Administration Keep the Case Alive?

Yes. The lawsuit was filed under the Biden administration, and the January 2025 transition raised questions about whether the new DOJ would drop it. Multiple reports describe “surprising continuity” in federal antitrust enforcement against big tech.¹¹ Gail Slater, the Trump administration’s pick to lead the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, told her Senate confirmation hearing she planned to “largely continue the strict enforcement of her predecessors” and identified the Apple case as an active Section 2 matter.¹² Some observers have noted Apple could try to negotiate a settlement with the new administration, but no settlement talks have been publicly reported.¹³

What a Government Win Could Mean for Apple

The case is nowhere near the remedies stage, but legal scholars and the DOJ’s filings have sketched what relief might look like if the government prevails. The main categories under discussion:

Mandatory interoperability, requiring Apple to give third-party developers and device makers access to platform interfaces, hardware features, and communication protocols on terms equivalent to Apple’s own services.
Opening app distribution to third-party app stores and direct downloads (sideloading), with prohibitions on financial or technical barriers to competing stores.
Payment flexibility, letting developers offer and advertise alternative billing options instead of routing through Apple’s in-app purchase system and commission.
Data portability, so consumers can easily transfer contacts, messages, photos, and other core data to a competing platform.
A technical oversight committee to monitor Apple’s compliance and handle developer complaints.

Analysts have pointed to the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which already requires Apple to make similar concessions in Europe, as evidence such remedies are technically feasible. The remedies ordered in the DOJ’s Google search case in September 2025 — which prohibited exclusive distribution agreements and required Google to share search data with rivals — offer another benchmark for the scope of relief the government might seek.¹⁴¹⁵

Other Apple Cases People Confuse With This One

The DOJ case is separate from several other legal fights over Apple’s practices. A wave of private consumer class actions has been consolidated as In re: Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 3113) in the same New Jersey federal court and before the same judge. The private plaintiffs allege Apple’s practices have forced consumers to pay inflated prices for iPhones and seek monetary damages along with injunctive relief. As of mid-2026, the MDL is still in its organizational phase, with no class certification ruling yet issued.¹⁶¹⁷

Separately, in the long-running Epic Games v. Apple litigation, a federal judge held Apple in contempt for violating an earlier antitrust order tied to steering developers toward third-party payment systems. Apple asked the Supreme Court to pause the contempt order in May 2026, and Justice Elena Kagan denied the emergency request without referring it to the full court.¹⁸

In Europe, the European Commission fined Apple €500 million in April 2025 for violating the Digital Markets Act’s anti-steering provisions and ordered Apple to remove the offending restrictions within 60 days. Apple has also opened its NFC tap-to-pay technology to third-party wallet apps in the European Economic Area under commitments effective since July 2024 for a ten-year period, the same kind of access the DOJ’s U.S. case seeks to compel domestically.¹⁹²⁰

With discovery still open and major questions about market definition and remedies unresolved, the DOJ case is likely years from a final answer. Its outcome will shape how far U.S. antitrust law reaches into the design of dominant technology platforms.

1
Justia. United States v. Apple Inc., No. 2:24-cv-04055-JXN-LDW
2
U.S. Department of Justice. DOJ Complaint in United States v. Apple Inc.
3
National Association of Attorneys General. U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
4
U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
5
MLex. Apple Can Attack Market Definition, Evidence, Legal Theory in Defense Against US Monopoly Suit
6
R Street Institute. The DOJ’s Weak Antitrust Case Against Apple
7
The Hill. US Judge Rules Apple Must Face Plausible DOJ Smartphone Monopoly Lawsuit
8
Law360. United States of America et al v. Apple Inc.
9
9to5Mac. Apple Says U.S. Is Refusing to Produce Federal Agency Documents in DOJ Antitrust Case
10
CNBC. Apple DOJ Antitrust Suit: Company Faces Years of Distraction
11
Tech Policy Press. Looking Ahead on US Antitrust Enforcement and Tech
12
Reuters. Trump’s DOJ Antitrust Nominee to Be Grilled on Enforcement
13
Los Angeles Times. Apple Loses Bid to Dismiss Justice Department Antitrust Suit
14
Yale School of Management. Apple Antitrust Remedies Analysis
15
U.S. Department of Justice. Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google
16
FindLaw. In re Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3113
17
CourtListener. Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation
18
SCOTUSblog. Court Turns Down Apple’s Request to Pause Order Holding It in Contempt
19
Tech Policy Press. Reviewing European Antitrust Activity in 2025
20
Apple Developer. HCE Transactions in Apps