Apple antitrust lawsuit ruling affirms states’ right to challenge digital monopolies; Nessel joins DOJ in landmark litigation.

Court Clears Way for Apple Antitrust Case Backed by Michigan

A federal judge has denied Apple Inc.’s attempt to dismiss a sweeping antitrust lawsuit, allowing a case led by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the U.S. Department of Justice, and 19 state attorneys general to proceed. The complaint alleges that Apple has unlawfully maintained monopoly power over smartphones by blocking innovation, restricting third-party developers, and imposing unfair limitations on competitors and consumers.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the 88-page ruling, issued June 30, rejected Apple’s motion to dismiss and confirmed that states have independent standing to sue corporations over harm to their residents.

“This ruling reinforces our ability to stand up for Michigan consumers when powerful tech companies act unfairly,” Nessel said in a prepared statement.

Judge Cites Apple’s Control Over Core Technologies as Anticompetitive

U.S. District Judge Julien X. Neals sided with the coalition of plaintiffs, citing sufficient evidence that Apple used its control over the iOS operating system, App Store, and core APIs to suppress emerging technologies and competition. The court highlighted five areas where Apple’s behavior could potentially violate antitrust law:

Super Apps: Apple allegedly limited mini-programs within super apps to prevent users from switching to other platforms.
Cloud Streaming: Apple forced cloud gaming providers to submit each game individually for review, hindering innovation and user access.
Text Messaging: Apple restricted SMS and OTT (over-the-top) messaging interoperability, undercutting cross-platform apps.
Smartwatches: Apple allegedly degraded functionality of third-party smartwatches on iPhones to drive users toward Apple Watch.
Digital Wallets: Apple blocked third-party use of NFC technology to secure Apple Pay’s dominance in mobile transactions.

According to the amended complaint, Apple controls 65% of the U.S. smartphone market and 70% of the “performance smartphone” segment, defined as high-end models used by most consumers. The court found that Apple’s technical and contractual restrictions may raise barriers for rivals and lock consumers into its ecosystem.

Michigan’s Role Underscored in Multi-State Legal Strategy

Michigan is one of 20 jurisdictions—including California, New York, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia—participating in the joint lawsuit. Nessel has been vocal about the need to restrain dominant tech firms, calling Apple’s alleged conduct “a clear example of market manipulation that hurts consumers and developers.”

The court emphasized that states have standing to bring antitrust actions to protect economic wellbeing and consumer choice, even when joined by federal agencies like the DOJ.

Apple Antitrust Lawsuit Broader Implications for Big Tech Oversight

Judge Neals’ ruling builds on legal standards established in United States v. Microsoft Corp. and more recent antitrust interpretations involving Google. Legal experts note that the court’s decision to accept the plaintiffs’ definitions of smartphone markets and competitive harm signals growing judicial openness to regulating Big Tech’s platform power.

The Apple case will now proceed to discovery and potential trial, setting up what could be a landmark legal showdown.

Your Turn – Like This, or Hate it – We Want To Hear From You

Please offer an insightful and thoughtful comment. We review each response. Follow us to have other feature stories fill up your email box, or check us out at ThumbWind News.