The Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple, filed on March 21, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, accuses Apple of illegally monopolizing the U.S. smartphone market by using restrictions across its iPhone ecosystem to block competitors and lock in customers. Twenty states and the District of Columbia have joined the federal government as co-plaintiffs. In June 2025, a federal judge denied Apple’s motion to dismiss and let every claim proceed. The case is now in discovery, with no trial date set.1CourtListener. United States of America v. Apple Inc.2United States Department of Justice. Four Additional States Join Justice Department’s Suit Against Apple Monopolizing Smartphone Markets
What Apple Is Accused of Doing
The complaint identifies five categories of conduct the government says Apple uses to keep its grip on the smartphone market. None have been proven at trial.
Blocking Super Apps and Cloud Gaming
Super apps bundle messaging, payments, ride-hailing, shopping, and mini-games into a single cross-platform experience. The DOJ alleges Apple restricts them because they would let customers do everything through one app and switch to Android without losing anything. Cloud gaming services face a related obstacle: the complaint says Apple required each streamed game to be submitted for individual App Store review rather than allowing a single streaming app, making full catalog services impractical on the iPhone.3United States Department of Justice. First Amended Complaint – U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
Messaging Between iPhones and Android Phones
iMessage between iPhones gets encryption, high-resolution media, typing indicators, and read receipts. Messages to Android phones historically fell back to SMS, stripping those features and showing up as green bubbles instead of blue. The DOJ alleges Apple deliberately maintained that quality gap to create social pressure to stay on iPhone. Apple adopted RCS in iOS 18, released in late 2024, which improved cross-platform media and group messaging, but the messages still appear in green bubbles and Apple has not extended end-to-end encryption to RCS conversations with Android users.3United States Department of Justice. First Amended Complaint – U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
Smartwatch Lock-In
The Apple Watch works only with iPhones, and the complaint argues that isn’t a neutral design choice. A customer who owns a $400 Apple Watch loses that investment if they switch to Android. At the same time, the government says Apple doesn’t allow third-party smartwatches to reach the same deep integration with the iPhone that the Apple Watch enjoys.
NFC and Digital Wallets
Apple Wallet is the only app on the iPhone that can use the phone’s NFC chip for tap-to-pay. Banks and fintech companies have asked for direct NFC access to build competing wallets. Apple has said no. The complaint quotes internal reasoning that allowing competing wallets would “be one way to disable Apple Pay trivially,” leading to a “proliferation of other payment apps” that could work across iPhone and Android. The government points out that Apple already lets merchants use the NFC antenna to accept payments and plans to allow third-party default wallets in Europe under the Digital Markets Act, which it argues undercuts any claim that U.S. restrictions are a technical necessity.3United States Department of Justice. First Amended Complaint – U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
The App Store Commission
Apple charges developers up to 30 percent on app sales and in-app purchases. The complaint frames this less as a standalone violation than as proof of monopoly power: because there is no other way to distribute iOS apps, Apple can extract fees that would be unsustainable in a competitive market. Apple has reduced fees for some smaller developers but still collects the full 30 percent from many.3United States Department of Justice. First Amended Complaint – U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
How the Government Defines the Market
Before proving Apple abused market power, the DOJ has to show Apple holds that power in a specific market. The complaint defines two. The first is the overall U.S. smartphone market, where the government alleges Apple controls roughly 65 percent of revenue. The second, narrower definition is the “performance smartphone” market, meaning higher-end devices with premium hardware, cameras, and security features. In that segment, the government claims Apple’s share exceeds 70 percent by revenue.4United States Department of Justice. U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
Market definition often decides antitrust cases before evidence is weighed. A narrower market makes Apple’s dominance look more pronounced; a broader one that includes all mobile devices shrinks Apple’s share and weakens the monopoly claim. When Apple challenged both definitions, the court found each plausible enough to survive, noting that performance smartphones differ meaningfully from entry-level phones in price and capability.5Justia Law. United States of America et al v. Apple Inc.
The Law Behind the Case
The case is brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which makes it illegal to monopolize or attempt to monopolize any part of interstate commerce.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 USC 2 – Monopolizing Trade a Felony; Penalty
Having a monopoly is not itself illegal. A company that dominates a market because it built a better product has not broken the law. The government has to prove two things: that Apple possesses monopoly power in the relevant market, and that Apple maintained it through exclusionary conduct rather than competition on the merits. That means showing consumers ended up with fewer choices, higher prices, or less innovation than they would have seen in an open market.
This is a civil case, not a criminal one. Nobody is going to prison. The government is seeking court orders to change Apple’s behavior, not fines or criminal penalties, even though Section 2 does carry criminal exposure of up to $100 million for corporations.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 USC 2 – Monopolizing Trade a Felony; Penalty
Apple’s Defense
Apple’s main argument is that it built the iPhone platform, owns the technology, and should be free to decide how third parties access it. In its August 2024 motion to dismiss, the company argued that “it is simply not a viable theory of antitrust law for the Government to contend that Apple must open its own platform and its own technologies to third parties on terms and conditions that those parties prefer.”
Apple also invoked the refusal-to-deal doctrine, claiming a legal right to choose its business partners and set its own terms. It described its restrictions as reasonable choices motivated by privacy, security, and user experience rather than a desire to crush competitors, and said its tightly integrated hardware-and-software ecosystem produces more reliable performance and faster security updates. Apple additionally attacked the government’s market definitions, calling the “performance smartphone” market an artificial construction that does not match how consumers actually shop for phones.
What the June 2025 Ruling Changed
On June 30, 2025, Judge Julien Xavier Neals denied Apple’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. All seven claims in the amended complaint survived, including federal monopolization and attempted monopolization claims for both the smartphone and performance smartphone markets, along with state-law antitrust claims brought by New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Tennessee.5Justia Law. United States of America et al v. Apple Inc.
The court rejected Apple’s key defenses at the pleading stage. On refusal-to-deal, the court held the doctrine did not apply because the government is not alleging Apple refused to deal with rival phone makers; the complaint targets restrictions Apple imposed on developers and users, a distinct legal theory. On market definition, the court accepted the performance smartphone market as a plausible “distinct submarket for antitrust purposes.” On monopoly power, alleged shares of 65 and 70 percent were enough at this stage. Apple’s arguments about privacy, security, and user experience were characterized as “factual disputes that must be resolved through discovery.”5Justia Law. United States of America et al v. Apple Inc.
Surviving a motion to dismiss is a low bar. It means the complaint tells a plausible story, not that anything has been proven. What it does mean for Apple is years of discovery, during which the DOJ will work through internal emails, strategy documents, and executive communications looking for evidence that Apple’s restrictions were driven by competitive fear rather than genuine product concerns.
What the Government Wants
The DOJ is seeking a permanent injunction that would force Apple to change how it operates its platform. Specific requests include prohibiting Apple from restricting cross-platform technologies, requiring Apple to open its private programming interfaces to third-party developers, and mandating interoperability for hardware accessories like smartwatches and digital wallets.4United States Department of Justice. U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.
The government has not explicitly asked for a structural breakup of Apple, though it has reserved the legal authority to do so. The recent U.S. v. Google remedies ruling suggests behavioral remedies are far more likely than structural ones: the court in that case rejected proposals to force the sale of Chrome and Android, calling structural remedies “incredibly messy and highly risky,” and instead imposed behavioral requirements such as banning exclusive distribution deals and mandating data-sharing.7Congressional Research Service. Federal Court Endorses Behavioral Remedies, Rejects Structural Relief
If the DOJ prevails, the likeliest shape of relief would include mandatory NFC access for competing wallets, required interoperability for messaging and accessories, permission for third-party app stores or sideloading, and some form of ongoing compliance oversight. How far a court is willing to go depends on what the evidence shows at trial.
Where the Case Stands
The case is assigned to Judge Neals in the District of New Jersey. Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington joined the original 15 states and the District of Columbia in the months after filing, bringing the total to 20 state and district co-plaintiffs alongside the federal government.2United States Department of Justice. Four Additional States Join Justice Department’s Suit Against Apple Monopolizing Smartphone Markets
With the motion to dismiss resolved, the case is in discovery. Both sides are exchanging documents, taking depositions, and building factual records. Cases of this complexity typically take years to reach trial. The Microsoft case took over two years from filing to trial; the Google search case took nearly four. A trial in this case is unlikely before 2027.
How This Differs from Epic Games v. Apple
Epic, the maker of Fortnite, sued Apple over App Store policies and the 30 percent commission as a private plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit largely sided with Apple, finding that the App Store did not constitute an illegal monopoly under the Sherman Act, though it affirmed an injunction under California’s unfair competition law requiring Apple to let developers point users to alternative payment options outside the App Store.8Justia Law. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 21-16506
Apple will likely cite Epic as evidence that courts have already rejected monopoly claims about the App Store. The DOJ’s response is that its case is broader: it targets not just the App Store commission but the whole set of restrictions Apple uses across hardware, software, and services to keep customers inside the iPhone ecosystem.