{"id":134,"date":"2024-03-21T15:48:00","date_gmt":"2024-03-21T19:48:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/?p=134"},"modified":"2024-03-21T15:48:00","modified_gmt":"2024-03-21T19:48:00","slug":"doj-and-16-state-attorneys-general-sue-apple-for-monopolization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/2024\/03\/21\/doj-and-16-state-attorneys-general-sue-apple-for-monopolization\/","title":{"rendered":"DOJ and 16 State Attorneys General Sue Apple for Monopolization"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<p>Continuing the government\u2019s antitrust enforcement campaign against the tech industry, the DOJ Antitrust Division, along with 16 states, today sued Apple Inc., in federal court in New Jersey, making sweeping allegations of a widespread scheme to monopolize the market for smartphones in the United States. Specifically, the government plaintiffs allege that Apple violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act as well as Wisconsin and New Jersey state antitrust laws. With this lawsuit, the U.S. antitrust agencies now have pending monopolization actions against all four \u201cbig tech\u201d companies: Apple, Google, Meta and Amazon.<br \/><br \/>The complaint alleges that Apple has a monopoly in two markets, the \u201csmartphone\u201d market and the narrower \u201cperformance smartphone\u201d market, and that it has maintained its monopoly in both markets by anti-competitive restrictions on app developers and potential rivals. According to the complaint, these restrictions have allowed Apple to \u201cextract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives.\u201d <br \/><br \/>Like the other government cases against the tech industry, this case promises to be a long drawn-out battle. <\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Continuing the government\u2019s antitrust enforcement campaign against the tech industry, the DOJ Antitrust Division, along with 16 states, today sued Apple Inc., in federal court in New Jersey, making sweeping allegations of a widespread scheme to monopolize the market for smartphones in the United States. Specifically, the government plaintiffs allege that Apple violated Section 2 &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/2024\/03\/21\/doj-and-16-state-attorneys-general-sue-apple-for-monopolization\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;DOJ and 16 State Attorneys General Sue Apple for Monopolization&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":341,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[11,22,53],"ppma_author":[37,8,9,7],"class_list":["post-134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-antitrust","tag-doj","tag-tech"],"authors":[{"term_id":37,"user_id":341,"is_guest":0,"slug":"chcasey","display_name":"Christopher H. Casey","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/68\/2024\/02\/caseychris-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":8,"user_id":659,"is_guest":0,"slug":"sckulik","display_name":"Sarah O'Laughlin Kulik","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/68\/2024\/02\/kuliksaraholaughlin-1-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":660,"is_guest":0,"slug":"spmcconnell","display_name":"Sean P. McConnell","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/68\/2025\/10\/mcconnellsean-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":7,"user_id":306,"is_guest":0,"slug":"ajrudowitz","display_name":"Andrew John (AJ) Rudowitz","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/68\/2024\/02\/rudowitzaj-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/341"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/antitrustlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}