US sues Apple for monopoly over smartphones

The US Department of Justice (DOJ), alongside 16 state and district attorneys general, has initiated a landmark antitrust lawsuit against the iPhone-maker Apple. The lawsuit accuses Apple of illegally monopolising the smartphone market through practices that lock in customers and degrade the experience of using rival products.

The federal government alleges that Apple has systematically driven up prices for both consumers and developers, fostering an environment where users become excessively dependent on its iPhones. The lawsuit highlights a variety of strategies purportedly employed by Apple to maintain its market dominance unlawfully. These include disrupting the potential of "super apps," blocking cloud streaming services, and limiting third-party access to essential smartphone functionalities such as digital wallet services.

The lawsuit requests that the court prohibit Apple from using its control over app distribution and other technologies to stifle competition. Although DOJ officials have refrained from discussing specific remedies, such as the potential breakup of Apple, they emphasised the importance of restoring competitive conditions in the market.

Jonathan Kanter, the Chief of the DOJ's Antitrust Division, condemned Apple's tactics as a series of "Whac-A-Mole" restrictions designed to thwart competition and extract undue fees from developers and content creators. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco criticised Apple for stifling industry innovation through its restrictive policies. 

In response, Apple has vigorously defended its practices, with spokesperson Fred Sainz asserting that the lawsuit misunderstands the company's business and threatens its fundamental principles. Apple plans to challenge the lawsuit's premises and defend its position in court, arguing for a broader market definition that includes global smartphone competition.

The lawsuit follows a history of antitrust actions against major tech companies, with the DOJ having previously targeted Google in similar litigation.