United States Alleges Apple's Monopolization of US Smartphone Market Violates Sherman Actby@legalpdf

United States Alleges Apple's Monopolization of US Smartphone Market Violates Sherman Act

by Legal PDFMarch 26th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

The United States alleges that Apple has willfully monopolized the US smartphone market through exclusionary conduct, harming competition and consumers, in violation of the Sherman Act.
featured image - United States Alleges Apple's Monopolization of US Smartphone Market Violates Sherman Act
Legal PDF HackerNoon profile picture

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 21 of 25.

C. Third Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Smartphone Market in the United States in Violation of Sherman Act § 2

211. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 210 above.

212. Smartphones in the United States is a relevant antitrust market, and Apple has monopoly power in that market.

213. Apple has willfully monopolized the smartphone market in the United States through an exclusionary course of conduct and the anticompetitive acts described herein. Each of Apple’s actions individually and collectively increased, maintained, or protected its smartphone monopoly.

214. Apple’s anticompetitive acts include, but are not limited to, its contractual restrictions against app creation, distribution, and access to APIs that have impeded apps and technologies including, but not limited to, super apps, cloud streaming, messaging, wearables, and digital wallets. The areas identified in this complaint reflect a non-exhaustive list of recent anticompetitive acts but as technology advances, both the technologies impeded and the specific manner of impediment may shift in response to technological and regulatory change consistent with Apple’s past conduct.

215. While each of Apple’s acts is anticompetitive in its own right, Apple’s interrelated and interdependent actions have had a cumulative and self-reinforcing effect that has harmed competition and the competitive process.

216. Apple’s anticompetitive acts have had harmful effects on competition and consumers.

217. Apple’s exclusionary conduct lacks a procompetitive justification that offsets the harm caused by Apple’s anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.

Continue Reading Here.

About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.

This court case retrieved on March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.