Judge in Apple antitrust case steps down, due to apparent conflict of interest

The judge due to hear the Apple antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice has recused himself, meaning that he will no longer preside over the case.

Judge Michael E. Farbiarz yesterday filed paperwork stating that his recusal is “necessary” under Code of Conduct rules …

The court filing (spotted by The Verge) records that his recusal has been accepted by the chief judge, and a new judge has been appointed.

Judge Michael E. Farbiarz, having determined that his recusal is necessary in this case under Canon 3(C)(1)(d) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, (in this circumstance, under Canon 3(D), disqualification is mandatory and cannot be remitted by the parties) this case and all related cases are reassigned to Judge Julien Xavier Neals for all further proceedings. Judge Michael E. Farbiarz no longer assigned to case. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 4/10/24. (mem, ) (Entered: 04/10/2024)

No specific reason is given, but Canon 3(C)(1)(d) reads:

3(C)(1): A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which […]

(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or

(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding

This suggests that either the judge or someone closely related to him has a potential interest in the case, whether through direct involvement (for example, working for one of the law firms involved, or likely to be called as a witness) or has a stake in the outcome. The latter could even be as simple as a significant shareholding in AAPL stock.

Some potential conflicts can be waived by the two parties, but as the judge stated that his recusal is “mandatory,” this means it falls into a category in which he must step down even if both parties were satisfied in his ability to be impartial.

The fact that the judge initially accepted the case indicates that, whatever the conflict is, it was not known to him at the time.

As the filing states, a new judge has been appointed, and the case will proceed as planned.