United States and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc. (Smartphone Monopolization)

Active Regulatory / Competition Technology Structural

The DOJ and 20 state and district attorneys general accuse Apple of illegally monopolizing the US smartphone market through interlocking ecosystem restrictions, on super apps, messaging, smartwatches, cloud gaming and digital wallets. The case survived dismissal in June 2025 and is now in hard-fought discovery, with no trial date set.

On September 17, 2026, the court admonished Apple, the DOJ, and MDL plaintiffs over recurring late-breaking discovery disputes, with the judge stating the parties had “been fooling around,” and imposed hard deadlines for completing document production and expert reports.

Filed on 21 March 2024 in the District of New Jersey, the government’s suit alleges Apple monopolizes the US smartphone and “performance smartphone” markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, not by excluding rival handset makers outright, but by selectively imposing contractual restrictions and withholding access points that would loosen the iPhone’s grip: suppressing “super apps” and cloud-streaming games, degrading cross-platform messaging, limiting third-party smartwatch functionality and blocking rival tap-to-pay wallets. Four more states joined by amended complaint in June 2024, and follow-on private class actions are coordinated with the government case as MDL 3113 before the same judge.

On 30 June 2025, Judge Julien Xavier Neals denied Apple’s motion to dismiss in full, holding that the complaint plausibly alleges monopoly power (a 65% share of US smartphones and 70% of performance smartphones, behind high switching costs) and that the challenged restrictions are actionable anticompetitive conduct rather than lenient-standard refusals to deal. The case is now in fact discovery, which has turned contentious: in May 2026 the government moved to quash Apple’s subpoenas to 14 federal agencies (including the CIA, FBI and NASA) as irrelevant and burdensome. Special Master Jose Linares ordered the agencies to produce documents on July 15, 2026, denied the DOJ’s motion for reconsideration on August 27, and on September 10 paused his order while Judge Neals considers the DOJ’s objection. No trial date has been set. 2027–28 is the realistic window.

  1. SEP 17, 2026PROCEDURAL
    Court admonishes parties over discovery delays, sets hard deadlines
    A US judge criticized Apple, the DOJ, and the MDL plaintiffs for repeated late-breaking discovery disputes in the smartphone monopolization litigation, remarking that the parties had “been fooling around,” and ordered firm deadlines for completing document production and expert reports.
  2. SEP 10, 2026PROCEDURAL
    Agency-discovery order paused pending Judge Neals’s review of the DOJ’s objection
  3. AUG 27, 2026PROCEDURAL
    Special master denies the DOJ’s motion for reconsideration of the agency-discovery order
  4. JUL 17, 2026OTHER
    Apple and DOJ enter early settlement talks
    Bloomberg reported that Apple and the Department of Justice are in early, active discussions to settle the antitrust lawsuit, with Apple having made multiple settlement offers during 2026. No agreement is guaranteed and no trial date has been set in the case.
  5. JUL 15, 2026PROCEDURAL
    Special master orders 14 federal agencies to produce documents to Apple
    Special Master Jose Linares found Apple’s requests relevant and the government’s burden and privilege objections unpersuasive. Agencies may withhold specific privileged records via a privilege log.
  6. MAY 2026PROCEDURAL
    Discovery dispute over Apple’s subpoenas to 14 federal agencies
    Apple accused the government of refusing to produce a single document from agencies it says hold evidence on smartphone security and app-marketplace policy. The DOJ moved to quash the subpoenas.
  7. JUN 30, 2025PROCEDURAL
    Motion to dismiss denied in full
    Judge Neals held the government plausibly alleged monopoly power and that Apple’s ecosystem restrictions are actionable anticompetitive conduct, not protected refusals to deal.
  8. JUN 11, 2024PROCEDURAL
    Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington join the suit
    An amended complaint brought the plaintiff group to 19 states plus the District of Columbia alongside the DOJ.
  9. JUN 2024PROCEDURAL
    Follow-on private class actions centralized as MDL 3113
    The JPML sent private smartphone antitrust actions to the District of New Jersey for coordination with the government case before Judge Neals.
  10. MAR 21, 2024FILING
    DOJ and 16 attorneys general sue Apple over smartphone monopolization
    The complaint, filed in Newark, alleges Apple unlawfully maintains smartphone monopolies by restricting super apps, cloud gaming, cross-platform messaging, smartwatches and third-party wallets.