An Apple corporate logo is displayed at their Grand Central Terminal store on June 13, 2024, in New York City. (Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)
The US Department of Justice has filed a case against Apple, alleging that it violated antitrust laws. The DOJ believes Apple – who has sought to have the case dismissed – has built a monopoly using an iPhone ecosystem that essentially locks out competitors by undermining innovative “super apps”, suppressing streaming services, excluding cross-platform messaging apps and even limiting non-Apple smartwatch functionality. A finding against Apple could mandate substantial changes to its business model, potentially reshaping the landscape of app development and functionality of the iPhone, say Phuti Mashalane and Dale Adams.
Vertical integration is a powerful strategy employed by businesses to control more than one stage of their supply chain. By integrating operations upstream and or downstream, businesses can reduce costs, enhance efficiencies and improve competitiveness.
However, vertical integration can sometimes be “illegal”.
This is according to a lawsuit instituted by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in March 2024, along with 20 state and district attorneys general (four of which joined the lawsuit on 11 June 2024) against Apple Inc., alleging, in a 91-page lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple violated antitrust laws with practices intended to keep customers reliant on their iPhones and less likely to switch to a competing device. It says:
Apple’s broad-based, exclusionary conduct makes it harder for Americans to switch smartphones, undermines innovation for apps, products, and services, and imposes extraordinary costs on Developers, Businesses, and Consumers.
At a high level, the lawsuit alleges that:
- Apple illegally maintains a monopoly over smartphones by selectively imposing contractual restrictions on developers and withholding critical access points from them; and that
- Apple undermines apps, products, and services that would otherwise make users less reliant on the iPhone, promote interoperability and lower costs for consumers and developers.
Through the above alleged monopolisation, the lawsuit further alleges that Apple is able to exercise monopoly power to extract more money from, among others, consumers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses and merchants.
Further allegations
The lawsuit further alleges that Apple has monopoly power, given its market shares of “over 70 percent of the performance smartphone market and over 65 percent of the broader smartphone market”.
According to the lawsuit, Apple’s alleged anti-competitive course of conduct of Apple has taken several forms, many of which continue to evolve.
This alleged conduct includes:
- blocking innovative “super apps”, disrupting the growth of apps with broad functionality that would make it easier for consumers to switch between competing smartphone platforms;
- suppressing mobile cloud streaming services, blocking the development of cloud-streaming apps and services that would allow consumers to enjoy high-quality video games and other cloud-based applications without having to pay for and rely on expensive Apple smartphone hardware. In this regard, the lawsuit notes that cloud streaming apps allow users to run computationally intensive programs without having to process or store the program on the smartphone itself. Instead, a user’s smartphone leverages the computing power of a remote server, which runs the program and streams the result back to the phone. Cloud streaming allows developers to bring cutting-edge technologies and services to smartphone consumers even if their smartphone includes hardware that is less powerful than an iPhone;
- limiting third party digital wallets in that Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets;
- excluding cross-platform messaging apps, making the quality of cross-platform messaging (and, generally, third-party message apps such as WhatsApp and Facebook) poor, less innovative and less secure for users in order for its customers to continue buying iPhones to use, for example, Apple’s messaging platform, iMessage, which generally has better functionality due to its deep integration with Apple’s software system;
- diminishing the functionality of non-Apple smartwatches by limiting the functionality of third-party smartwatches in such a way that users who purchase the Apple Watch face substantial out-of-pocket costs if they do not buy iPhones to use it.
In this regard, the lawsuit notes that the Apple Watch is only compatible with the iPhone. Consequently, the Apple Watch cannot be used, at least functionally, with any other phone apart from the iPhone.
It says Apple uses its control of the iPhone, including its technical and contractual control of critical APIs (Application Programming Interface), to degrade the functionality of third-party cross-platform smartwatches in at least three significant ways.
First, Apple deprives iPhone users with third-party smartwatches of the ability to respond to notifications. Second, Apple inhibits third-party smartwatches from maintaining a reliable connection with the iPhone and, third, Apple undermines the performance of third-party smartwatches that connect directly with a cellular network.
Apple, as a brand, is ubiquitous, and all of the above allegations are, in substance, facets of Apple’s vertical integration in the performance smartphone market which are now alleged to be illegal from a competition law perspective.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the tech giant and the broader app economy.
For example, a finding against Apple could mandate substantial changes to its business model, potentially reshaping the landscape of app development and functionality of the iPhone. This observation is echoed by Apple spokesperson Fred Sainz when he said the lawsuit “threatens who we are [our emphasis] and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets” and that “we believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it”.
In the broader context, this lawsuit reflects growing global concerns about the power wielded by major tech companies and the need for regulatory frameworks that ensure fair competition and consumer protection.
Given Apple’s size and global presence, it is not inconceivable that other competition watchdogs across the globe will keep a close eye on the developments of this lawsuit.
This may particularly be the case in light of the fact that the case comes up at a time when many competition watchdogs across the globe are trying to up their ante in the effort to effectively regulate digital markets.
It remains to be seen whether Apple will be found guilty of violating antitrust laws. We await the outcome.
* Apple has argued in court that the case should be dismissed at an early stage because it has not been demonstrated that the alleged monopoly was harmful to consumers, Bloomberg reported. A decision on the bid to dismiss is expected in January.
Phuti Mashalane and Dale Adams, Director and Senior Associate at Werksmans Attorneys.
News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
This post was originally published on here
