Skip to main content

Antitrust

See All Stories

There are growing concerns that Apple could be facing an anti-trust investigation by the US Department of Justice.

Apple faces antitrust worries

What does antitrust mean?

In most jurisdictions around the world, it is illegal for large companies to band together to form agreements or “trusts” to behave in a particular way – for example, to all sell their products for the same high price. Laws designed to outlaw this type of behavior are called antitrust legislation.

However, the term is used more generally to refer to laws designed to prevent companies from engaging in any kind of anti-competitive action – that is, do anything that would tend to artificially distort competition within a market.

One common myth is that antitrust laws only apply to monopolies. This is very much not the case: They apply to any company large enough to have a dominant position in any market. As we shall see below, the definition of the word “market” can be crucial to deciding whether antitrust concerns arise.

Why is Apple facing antitrust investigations?

First, Apple is a very large company, and it would be very easy for a company of that size to commit antitrust violations, so it is to be expected that any massive corporation would be put under the antitrust microscope.

But in Apple’s case, there are some more specific concerns based on the company”s market dominance in particular areas. These are addressed below.

What are the antitrust concerns with Apple?

There are a number of different ones, in areas as diverse as ad tracking and Sign In With Apple, but here are three of the main ones.

The App Store

The biggest antitrust concern is the App Store.

Apple argues that it does not have a dominant position in this market, as it considers the relevant market to be either “smartphones” or “apps.” Since the company holds a minority share of the smartphone market in most of the countries in which it operates, it believes it cannot be considered to have a dominant position.

Competition regulators tend to take the view that the relevant market is “iOS apps,” and here Apple has a 100% monopoly on their sale and distribution. Edge cases aside, there is no way for a developer to bring an iOS app to market without selling it through the App Store.

Companies like Epic Games argue that they should be allowed to sell in-app purchases without Apple taking a cut of their revenue. The argument here is that Apple harms developers by taking part of their income, and consumers by forcing developers to charge more to make up for Apple’s cut. Apple, in response, says that it is perfectly normal for a company to take a cut of the sales it facilitates.

Default apps

Additionally, some companies accuse Apple of anti-competitive behavior by giving its own apps advantages over third-party ones.

One way that Apple does this, they say, is by pre-installing its own apps. For example, when the Apple Weather app is already installed on an iPhone when you buy it, then Apple’s own app has an obvious advantage over a competing app.

There is overlap here with the App Store concerns. For example, Apple Music and Spotify are competitors, but not only is Apple Music preinstalled, you can subscribe from within the app. If Spotify offered this same ability, it would have to pay Apple a 30% cut. Spotify can’t afford this, so users are forced to take a more long-winded route to subscription, which gives Apple Music an additional competitive advantage.

Relationships with carriers and retailers

Apple has also been found guilty in more than one country of exploiting a dominant position within the smartphone market to place undue demands on carriers and retailers.

Because the popularity of iPhones meant carriers had to sell them, Apple was able to dictate terms. In South Korea, for example, it was accused of imposing three onerous conditions on local carriers:

  • Carriers had to buy minimum quantities of each model, dictated by Apple
  • Carriers had to share the cost of warranty repairs or replacements
  • Carriers had to pay to run Apple’s own TV ads for the iPhone

Budget-focused carriers might, for example, want to buy only older and cheaper models, as that’s what their customers want, but Apple would force them to buy flagship models, too. And if a phone proved faulty, Apple wouldn’t just replace it, but would oblige carriers to meet some of the costs. Finally, although carriers had to pay the full cost of running iPhone ads on TV, they were only allowed to use Apple’s own ads, and the only thing they were permitted to change was adding their own logo to the final frame.

Additional areas of concern range from Apple Pay to a 4K video codec alliance!

What could happen to Apple as a result?

Antitrust outcomes will usually happen on a country-by-country basis, though there are exceptions. In Europe, for example, it is likely that the European Union will act as a bloc, and that any legislation applying to Apple will apply across all 27 member countries.

The worst-case scenario for Apple is for the US government to call for the breakup of the company. For example, it might be ruled that Apple Inc cannot run an App Store while also selling the iPhones on which those apps run. This is not a likely outcome, however.

A more likely scenario is a series of smaller changes. For example, Apple might be required to appoint an independent oversight board to carry out app reviews, or that it must allow Spotify to offer in-app subscriptions without taking a cut.

How is Apple responding?

In public, Apple’s stance is an outraged one, arguing that it does not have a dominant position and is doing nothing wrong. Behind closed doors, the company is aware that it either has to change some of its practices, or be forced to do so by law.

For example, while publicly declaring that a 30% commission on apps was industry standard, Apple made a massive U-turn by introducing the Small Business Program, with a 15% commission instead. Although touted as applying to the smallest developers, it in fact applies to 98% of them. It would be more accurate to say that the App Store now has a standard commission rate of 15%, with a higher 30% rate applying only to a tiny minority of companies.

The company has also quietly made a number of other changes in direct response to antitrust concerns, for example, opening up the Find My app to third-party accessories, and allowing people to change their default email app and web browser.

However, Apple is still sticking its head in the sand and hoping the issue will go away – when it absolutely won’t.

Apple-Amazon deal may be illegal, is being investigated by the FTC

Official Apple Amazon Store

Apple and Amazon reached an agreement last year for the Cupertino company to sell its products directly to consumers through an official Apple store on the ecommerce site.

While the move was pitched as making more Apple products available to Amazon buyers and addressing the problem of counterfeit goods, it cut most third-party resellers out of the loop — which is the reason the FTC is reportedly now carrying out an antitrust investigation …


Expand
Expanding
Close

Avoid tech stocks facing antitrust lawsuits, warns Apple Card partner bank

Avoid tech stocks facing antitrust lawsuits, investors told

Goldman Sachs, Apple’s partner for the Apple Card launching later this year, has warned investors to avoid tech stocks which become subject to antitrust lawsuits.

Apple currently faces two antitrust suits, one from customers, another from developers – with a separate antitrust investigation underway in Europe and the prospect of another in the US …


Expand
Expanding
Close

Apple antitrust woes could worsen as US ponders major tech giant investigation

Apple antitrust investigation by Justice Department being considered

Apple antitrust concerns are growing as the US government is now considering a major investigation into possible anticompetitive behaviors by Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google. It follows an earlier report which suggested only Google was at risk.

If the probe does go ahead, Apple and Google are likely to be investigated by the Justice Department rather than the FTC …


Expand
Expanding
Close

Supreme Court rules against Apple in antitrust lawsuit, allows customer to sue over App Store

App Store

A major lawsuit against Apple and its App Store will be allowed to move forward, the United States Supreme Court has decided, affirming the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The lawsuit relates to Apple’s requirement that apps distributed on the iPhone go through the App Store which is controlled by the iPhone.


Expand
Expanding
Close

Chapter finally closing in Apple’s ebook antitrust case as U.S. Justice Dept says court monitoring can end

The U.S. Justice Department has said that is now satisfied with Apple’s measures to guard against any repetition of the type of anti-competitive behaviour ruled illegal in the long-running ebooks trial. Bloomberg reports that the department has recommended that the court-appointed monitor is no longer necessary.

In a letter to the Manhattan federal judge who found in 2013 that Apple illegally conspired with publishers to set e-book prices, the U.S. said Apple has “now implemented meaningful antitrust policies, procedures, and training programs that were obviously lacking at the time Apple participated in and facilitated the horizontal price-fixing conspiracy found by this court.”

The letter did, however, note that Apple “never embraced a cooperative working relationship with the monitor” … 
Expand
Expanding
Close

Spotify turns up the heat against Apple’s streaming music service, making fresh anti-competitive behavior claim

Site default logo image

Spotify, which is widely believed to be behind the antitrust allegations that led to both EC and DOJ investigations into Apple, has now added a fresh complaint. The Verge reports Spotify is complaining that the 30% cut Apple takes from in-app Premium subscriptions in the iOS app amounts to an “Apple tax.”

Apple charges a 30 percent fee toward any sales through its App Store, and that includes subscription services. That means if Spotify wants to sell its premium subscription service — which usually costs $9.99 a month — through the App Store, it has to raise the price 30 percent higher to $12.99 to pull in the same revenue, while Apple can still offer Beats at a lower price. Spotify and many others in the music industry believe Apple’s App Store tax gives them an unfair advantage over the competition.

One unnamed music industry source said that Apple taking 30% was “**cking bullsh**” … 
Expand
Expanding
Close

Apple accused of stifling streaming music competition as DOJ joins EC in antitrust investigation

Site default logo image

Allegations that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices in the run-up to the launch of its rebranded Beats streaming music service are now being investigated by the Department of Justice, according to “multiple sources” cited by The Verge.

The claim is that Apple has been attempting to use its influence to persuade music labels to pull out of deals with free, ad-supported services like Spotify and YouTube in order to reduce competition and increase demand for its own paid service. The European Commission launched an investigation into these same allegations last month …


Expand
Expanding
Close

European antitrust authorities investigating Apple’s streaming music service even before it launches

Site default logo image

Apple’s planned rebranding and relaunch of the Beats streaming music service has not had the easiest of rides. The launch, initially planned for earlier this year, was delayed by the departure of key execs and difficulties integrating Beats and Apple technologies. A planned $5/month price-point had to be abandoned in favor of an attempt at $7.99/month when music labels wouldn’t play ball, and that too now looks increasingly unlikely even though Google Play offered initial All Access Signups for a $7.99 locked in. And any plans to offer artist exclusives as an inducement now face competition from newly-relaunched Tidal.

Just when it seemed things couldn’t get any tougher, London’s Financial Times reports that the European Commission is considering launching an antitrust investigation into the service, even before it launches. The Commission has contacted several music labels to ask what deals have been done with Apple, says the FT.

The commission, which also has contacted Apple’s music-streaming rivals, is said to be concerned that the company will use its size, relationships and influence to persuade labels to abandon free, ad-supported services such as Spotify, which depend on licenses with music companies for their catalogues.

The newspaper implies that the investigation may have been triggered by a formal complaint by an existing streaming music service … 
Expand
Expanding
Close

Site default logo image

Judge denies media requests for public release of Steve Jobs deposition from iPod antitrust case

A judge decided today to deny media requests for a public release of Steve Jobs’ videotaped deposition in last week’s iPod antitrust case. Apple had been fighting back against these requests, saying that members of the press who wanted to air the video just wanted to see “a dead man.”

The ruling essentially states that since live testimony from witnesses was not recorded and then released to the media, the Jobs deposition should not be either. Because the video was not entered into evidence as an exhibit, it can’t be treated like evidence.

There was also a concern expressed in the ruling that in the future, witnesses might be hesitant to give videotaped depositions if they believed the video might be released to the press. Transcriptions of the portions of the video shown in court are included in the public record, and the judge found that to be sufficient.

You can real the full ruling below (via Apple Insider).

Apple wins iPod & iTunes DRM antitrust case, jury decides

Site default logo image

Update — Apple’s statement via CNBC: “We thank the jury for their service and we applaud their verdict.”

A jury has decided that Apple is not guilty of violating antitrust laws in the decade-old lawsuit involving the iPod, iTunes Music Store, and digital rights management usage. The jury had to determine if the iTunes updates affecting customers’ iPods were “genuine product improvements” with Apple citing security concerns for implementing the usage of DRM.
Expand
Expanding
Close

Jury begins deliberations in antitrust lawsuit over iPods, iTunes, and third-party music stores

Site default logo image

The class-action lawsuit against Apple over alleged anticompetitive behavior in how the iPod handled songs from third-party much stores is finally in the hands of a jury. Following last week’s final witness testimony, the jury has started deliberations in the decade-old case.

The evidence and testimony in this case have given us quite a bit of insight into the way Apple operated ten years ago with regards to its iPod and iTunes business. Former CEO Steve Jobs took jabs at rival Real Networks in a videotaped deposition (which the media wants the public to see, but Apple doesn’t). We also learned details of Apple’s contracts with record labels.


Expand
Expanding
Close

Apple fighting media requests to air Steve Jobs deposition from iPod antitrust suit

Site default logo image

As we noted earlier today, several media outlets have filed a motion that would allow them to air the videotaped deposition of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs that was played for jurors in the ongoing iPod antitrust lawsuit. Now the Verge reports that Apple is fighting back against the motion, with the company’s lawyers accusing the media of wanting to see “a dead man.”

As Apple attorney Jonathan Sherman put it:

The marginal value of seeing him again, in his black turtleneck — this time very sick — is small. What they want is a dead man, and they want to show him to the rest of the world, because it’s a judicial record.


Expand
Expanding
Close

AP, Bloomberg and CNN file motion to allow them to broadcast Steve Jobs deposition video

Site default logo image

We may get to see the two-hour video of Steve Jobs giving pre-trial evidence in the iPod antitrust case, if the judge approves a motion jointly filed by AP, Bloomberg and CNN to make it public. CNET reported:

“Given the substantial public interest in the rare posthumous appearance of Steve Jobs in this trial, there simply is no interest that justifies restricting the public’s access to his video deposition,” attorney Thomas Burke, who is representing all three media organizations, wrote in the filing Monday

The video currently has the same status of live testimony given in the case, meaning that it can be reported on but the video cannot be broadcast … 
Expand
Expanding
Close

Last plaintiff in iTunes antitrust lawsuit disqualified, but the show must go on as lawyers search for replacement

Site default logo image

In the latest twist in the iPod antitrust lawsuit that has already given us a deposition of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs and details about Apple’s deal with record labels to sell music in the iTunes Store, a judge ruled on Monday that the trial will continue even though there are no plaintiffs left.

Yes, you read that correctly. Every single plaintiff in the case has been disqualified. Marianna Rosen, the last complainant standing, was discovered to have never purchased an iPod that was affected by the song-deleting software updates in question.


Expand
Expanding
Close

Apple questions whether iPod class action suit can proceed as case may lack genuine plaintiffs

Site default logo image

Just as it looked like the iPod-related class action suit against Apple was getting interesting, Eddy Cue arguing that competing music stores had effectively hacked the iPod, it now seems the case is in danger of collapsing.

Apple’s lawyers have written to the judge to say there is no evidence that either of the two plaintiffs owned iPods during the time affected by Apple’s action to remove non-iTunes songs from iPods … 
Expand
Expanding
Close