The Justice Department and 16 state and district attorneys general alleged in their March complaint that Apple has illegally monopolized the U.S. smartphone market. The government claimed that Apple violated the law by maintaining a closed ecosystem for the iPhone in pursuit of profits and at the expense of consumers and innovation. The government pointed to several examples in its complaint, including allegedly suppressing the quality of messaging between iPhones and competing platforms like Android and preventing third-party developers from creating competing digital wallets for the iPhone with tap-of-a-button payment functionality.
In a new filing, Apple says the Justice Department’s argument “is based on the false premise that the success of the iPhone has been achieved not by creating a superior product that consumers trust and love, but by Apple’s intentional debasement of the iPhone to block perceived competitive threats.” The company calls that idea “outlandish” and claims antitrust law protects its ability “to design and control its own product” rather than relying on outside developers.
Apple claims that it has given third-party developers “exceptionally broad” access to the iPhone platform “while applying reasonable limitations to protect consumers.” Apple characterizes the third-party developers in question in the complaint not as small startups, but rather as “well-capitalized social media companies, large banks, and global game developers — all of them formidable competitors in their own right and none of which have the same incentives to protect the integrity or security of the iPhone as Apple does.”
Apple outlines five key reasons why it says the court should dismiss the Justice Department's lawsuit:
Apple is requesting oral arguments to debate its motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Apple says that if the government gets its way, it would “harm innovation and risk depriving consumers of the private, safe, and secure experience that sets iPhone apart from every other option on the market.”
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
