Search results for "Federal"

US Department of Justice and States Sue Apple Under Federal and State Antitrust Laws

The US Department of Justice and 16 states have sued Apple for antitrust violations in an 88-page complaint filed in New Jersey federal court. At the time of publication, the DOJ’s press release, which has been shared with some media outlets, has not been published on the DOJ website, although I expect it will be before long. In response, Apple says:

At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love—designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people’s privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users. This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple—where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology. We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.

We’ll have a more detailed breakdown of the plaintiffs’ allegations against Apple soon, but the allegations are broad, claiming that:

  • Apple has monopolized or attempted to monopolize the smartphone market under the federal Sherman Act;
  • Apple has monopolized or attempted to monopolize the performance smartphone market under the federal Sherman Act and Wisconsin and New Jersey antitrust laws

(emphasis added).

The DOJ and states argue that Apple’s alleged anticompetitive behavior extends beyond its effect on users and developers to touch a wide swath of the economy:

Critically, Apple’s anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries that are affected by these restrictions, including financial services, fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more. Unless Apple’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped, it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other markets and parts of the economy. For example, Apple is rapidly expanding its influence and growing its power in the automotive, content creation and entertainment, and financial services industries–and often by doing so in exclusionary ways that further reinforce and deepen the competitive moat around the iPhone.

The DOJ and states seek a number of different remedies, including:

a. preventing Apple from using its control of app distribution to undermine cross-platform technologies such as super apps and cloud streaming apps, among others;

b. preventing Apple from using private APIs to undermine cross- platform technologies like messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among others; and

c. preventing Apple from using the terms and conditions of its contracts with developers, accessory makers, consumers, or others to obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench a monopoly.

There’s a lot to digest in the complaint, which you can read for yourself here. I highly recommend reading at least the introduction to get a better sense of what Apple is being accused of. Keep in mind that this is just one side of the story, but Apple will tell its side in more detail soon enough. And, of course, I will be back soon with a more detailed look at what this lawsuit is all about and what’s at stake.

Federal Government Agencies Embrace The iPad, iPhone and Gmail

iPads, iPhones, Gmail and Android phones; typically they have been the devices and services used (and loved) by consumers around the world. Yet in recent times they are increasingly becoming a reality for employees within the confines of the bureaucratic world of government departments. An article today in the Washington Post details how ‘federal government 2.0’ has embraced consumer devices, to solve real world problems and to appease government employees across the US.

Somewhere in America, perhaps at this very moment, a bad guy is under video surveillance. He is being watched, every movement, every step — but not on a little TV. That’s so 2009. Instead, a special agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is keeping tabs on an iPad.

It isn’t just President Obama that is lucky enough to own an iPad, employees in various departments in all arms of the US government are bringing them in to work and the IT staff have stopped restricting them and started embracing them. Vivek Kundra, the federal government’s chief information officer says that it’s not that people don’t like government or corporate style technology – they despise it.

Kundra’s answer to the issue of people using unauthorized devices is simple: Give them what they want.

Agilex, one of the companies contracted by the government to integrate Apple products into government agencies has said that “the demand we are seeing now in the last 90 days has been just extraordinary.” – “It’s like everybody is saying, ‘This is really happening here now’”. Gmail too has been widely adopted across many agencies in the Federal government including the State Department, NASA and the Army . Yet the best part is that it doesn’t just make the lives of government employees better, but it is also saving the government money.

[Via Washington Post]

Apple Asking Federal Government To Fight iPhone Jailbreak?

In spite of the Digital Copyright Millenium Act marking the iPhone “jailbreak” procedure as legal, it appears that Apple is still going after hackers and jailbreakers who modify its mobile OS to install unapproved apps and use the handset on unsupported carriers, the NBC reports. By definition, “jailbreak” refers to a set of tools and hacks used to run software and third-party apps Apple doesn’t want in the App Store, whilst “unlock” is a term to indicate the hacks that allow users to let the iPhone work on carriers that don’t support the device, like T-Mobile in the US or other carriers worldwide. Unlock tools and various jailbreak techniques have existed since the original iPhone came out. Most notably, unlock app Ultrasn0w and jailbreak software like PwnageTool, Spirit, Blackra1n and Limera1n. Read more

Apple-Google Ad War Attracting Federal Attention?

This is a story that gets old real quick. A news journalist hears the feds are out to investigate Apple because they’re bullying the music industry. The story gets posted and the media goes crazy with it. We hear rumors of an investigation with no real action.

In the meantime Apple changes their developer agreement and has some fun blocking AdMob. The feds get interested again (this time in advertising), and thus starts another lifeless cycle. “Lifeless,” being the keyword here.

Read more

Are Pride Wallpapers and a Watch Band Enough in 2025?

Today, Apple introduced their 2025 Pride Collection, with a set of new LGBTQ+-themed wallpapers for iOS and iPadOS that will be available as part of iOS and iPadOS 18.5. The collection also includes an Apple Watch Pride Edition Sports band, which matches a new Pride Harmony watch face in watchOS 11.5.

Despite being just another installment in what has become an annual tradition for the company, the 2025 collection rings hollow in contrast with Apple’s stance regarding the current U.S. administration.

Image: Apple

Image: Apple

On January 20th, President Trump signed executive orders that have already gravely impacted trans people across the United States. Despite the President’s clear intentions to do so before he was sworn into office, Apple CEO Tim Cook chose to donate $1M to the President’s inauguration fund and attended the inauguration alongside other American tech company leaders, including Google’s Sundar Pichai, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. The latter three have all scrapped Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts inside their respective companies, following the President’s executive order terminating U.S. government DEI initiatives and scrubbing governmental documents of all references to trans people. In February, Apple shareholders rejected a proposal to follow the government’s lead, choosing to preserve the company’s diversity programs. However, Cook hedged saying that the company “may need to make some changes to comply”, while also reassuring that Apple’s “north star of dignity and respect for everyone and our work to that end will never waver.” Then last week, Cook remotely appeared at a celebration of the President’s first 100 days in office.

This seemingly nuanced alignment with President Trump contrasts with Tim Cook’s outspoken support for the LGBTQ+ community when he came out in 2014, and Apple’s continued participation in the San Francisco Pride Parade. The same dissonance appears in the final sentence of the company’s press release which states that “Apple is proud to financially support organizations that serve LGBTQ+ communities.”

Today’s announcement of the 2025 Pride Collection’s made me think back to Joe Rosensteel’s great piece that he published in January soon after the inauguration, in which he expresses immense disappointment in Tim Cook. In regard to Apple’s yearly Apple Watch Pride bands and its participation in the San Francisco Pride parade, he rightly asked:

How should people reconcile Tim’s explicit support of Trump with his support of trans and enby people working at Apple, buying products from Apple, and attending pride parades with Apple?

At a time when some trans people are actively seeking to flee the U.S. to preserve their fundamental right to a healthy, safe, and decent life free from the threat of President Trump’s actions, Apple doesn’t seem to be stepping up to its professed values to the extent that the situation requires. As of today, there have been no reports of the company increasing its financial support of organizations that support LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. Nor has Apple attempted to publicly and explicitly speak out against the administration’s attacks targeting trans people. Instead, Apple has chosen to simply iterate on its Pride wallpapers and watch bands, which will retail at $49.

Maybe I should feel relieved that Apple chose not to discontinue the Pride Collection. But considering the urgency felt by the LGBTQ+ community, Apple releasing Pride bands and wallpapers is simply not enough to compensate for its decision not to speak out against President Trump’s attacks on trans people. There are certainly risks to Apple if it were to do more to stand up for the LGBTQ+ community, but those risks pale in comparison to the increasing threats trans and other people in the LGBTQ+ community face in the U.S. and around the world every day. It’s time for Apple to step up and do more than wallpapers and a watch band.

Google’s Antitrust Loss, Why Apple Doesn’t Just Build a Search Engine, and What Comes Next

Yesterday, Federal District Judge Amit Mehta issued a ruling in the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust case against Google in favor of the government. Judge Mehta didn’t mince words:

Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The Judge further explained his ruling:

Specifically, the court holds that (1) there are relevant product markets for general search services and general search text ads; (2) Google has monopoly power in those markets; (3) Google’s distribution agreements are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects; and (4) Google has not offered valid procompetitive justifications for those agreements. Importantly, the court also finds that Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits.

It’s a long opinion, coming in at nearly 300 pages, but the upshot of why Judge Mehta ruled the way he did is summed up nicely near the beginning of the tome:

But Google also has a major, largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution. Most users access a general search engine through a browser (like Apple’s Safari) or a search widget that comes preloaded on a mobile device. Those search access points are preset with a “default” search engine. The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points. Google derives extraordinary volumes of user data from such searches. It then uses that information to improve search quality. Google so values such data that, absent a user-initiated change, it stores 18 months-worth of a user’s search history and activity.

If you’re interested in how web search works and the business deals that drive it, the opinion is a great primer. Plus, although the details already dribbled out over the course of the 10-week trial, there are lots of interesting bits of information buried in there for anyone interested in Apple’s search deal with Google.

Read more

Understanding the DOJ’s Antitrust Complaint Against Apple

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice, 15 states, and the District of Columbia sued Apple for alleged federal and state antitrust violations. Apple issued an immediate response, and before anyone had time to read the DOJ’s 88-page complaint, the Internet was overrun with hot takes.

However, the thing about lawsuits – and especially big, sprawling, high-stakes ones like the DOJ’s – is that they’re the proverbial tortoise to the Internet’s hare. Barring a settlement among the parties, the case against Apple isn’t likely to go to trial anytime soon. Add to that appeals, and this process is going to take years, not months.

So, since we have plenty of time, I thought I’d kick off our coverage at MacStories with a look at the DOJ’s complaint and its legal underpinnings, along with some observations on what’s going on and what you can expect to happen next.

Read more

What’s Next for Apple and Epic’s Legal Disputes?

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court told Epic Games and Apple, “No, thank you,” and Apple served up an ugly alert to developers who can now offer payment options outside the App Store. If you’re thinking, “Wait, didn’t this all get resolved ages ago?” I feel you. The legal system moves at its own pace, which is an order of magnitude slower than technology. However, what might feel like a lifetime ago to many MacStories readers is pretty typical. It also means that it’s time to put on my ‘former lawyer’ hat for a moment to revisit where things stand with Epic and Apple and consider what’s next.

Read more

Apple Announces Plans to Pause Sales of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in the Wake of ITC Ruling→

In a statement to 9to5Mac, Apple said that it “pausing” sales of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 in the United States, beginning later this week. Neither model of Watch will be available on Apple’s online store starting December 21st, and the company will no longer sell them at retail locations after December 24th. The announcement comes on the heels of a decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission earlier this year that was the result of an intellectual property complaint filed by Masimo, a medical technology company.

Apple and Masimo have been locked in disputes over the Apple Watch’s blood oxygen sensor for years, which Masimo says infringes patents it holds. The dispute is the subject of a federal court lawsuit and the complaint filed with the ITC, which ruled in Masimo’s favor in October. That decision is subject to executive review by the Biden administration and could be vetoed, but time is running out, and vetos are historically rare.

If President Biden doesn’t veto the ITC’s ruling by Christmas, the ruling will stand. Apple could appeal the ITC’s decision in federal court, but that won’t impact the ban on U.S. sales of the two Apple Watch models, according to 9to5Mac. Apple could also settle with Masimo and license its technology or try to find a way to work around Masimo’s patents.

If I had to guess what’s going on here, I’d say it’s a high-stakes game of corporate chicken. Masimo got a ruling from the ITC that gave it leverage, so they asked for a big licensing deal. The Biden administration probably doesn’t want to deal with the dispute or look like it’s bailing out a big tech company, so I bet it told the parties to work things out, assuming Apple would pay up. Whether it ultimately will, only Apple knows, but it’s decided to force the Biden administration’s hand on the veto. If the ruling is vetoed, Apple’s existing court fight with Masimo continues, and the Series 9 and Ultra 2 go back on sale on December 26th. If not, the company still has the option to settle, which I have to imagine is preferable to pulling products from shelves for a potentially extended period of time.

Permalink