Apple’s defense counters that the lawsuit would necessitate a “judicial redesign” of the iPhone, which it describes as “one of the most innovative and consumer-friendly products ever made.” Apple argues that antitrust laws protect its right to design and control its products without having to accommodate third-party developers.
The DoJ’s complaint highlights several allegedly anticompetitive practices by Apple, including the suppression of message quality between iPhones and Android devices and restrictions on third-party digital wallets with tap-to-pay functionality. Apple vehemently rejects these claims, labeling the premise “outlandish” and insisting that its success is not due to intentional product degradation.
Apple presents five key arguments for dismissal:
- The company is not obligated to work with third-party developers, and declining to do so does not constitute exclusionary conduct.
- The DoJ fails to link Apple’s approach to various apps and features with consumer smartphone purchasing decisions.
- Apple’s market share is insufficient to classify it as a monopolist.
- The government has not demonstrated Apple’s intent in its attempted monopolization claim.
- The DoJ’s case is overly broad, encompassing numerous Apple products and services without sufficient focus.
Apple also characterizes the third-party developers mentioned in the complaint. The company said: “well-capitalized social media companies, big banks, and global gaming developers” with their competitive interests. The company maintains it has provided “exceptionally broad” access to its platform while implementing reasonable limitations to protect consumers.
Apple warns that if the government prevails, it could harm innovation and deprive consumers of the private, safe. The company also asked tosecure experience that distinguishes the iPhone. The company has requested oral arguments to debate its motion for dismissal.
About Author
