On March 21, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the tech giant Apple, with Jonathan Kanter leading the case, claiming that the company has been violating antitrust laws. This lawsuit falls in line with the department’s most recent aggressive attempt to crack down on big tech, and as the suit progresses the public might see more cases filed against other major companies like Apple.

Moreover, a recent significant development in the lawsuit is the reassignment of the case’s judge. According to The Verge, due to a conflict of interest, Judge Michael Farbiarz determined that his recusal was necessary. However, he did not give precise reasoning for the dismissal, instead the only information given was that he was removed because of a strong financial tie that either he or a family member has to the tech company. The lawsuit will continue with judge Julien Xavier Neals.   

Additionally, this extensive suit is accusing the company of holding a monopoly in smartphones, therefore allowing them to keep prices high and prevent competitors from having devices with the capacity to compete in the market. According to attorney general Merrick Garland, currently, the company controls over 65% of the total smartphone market in the US. 

According to AP news, the DOJ is alleging that the tech corporation is both locking its opposing tech companies out of the market while also keeping its consumers entranced in the business by utilizing several methods that are not aligned with current antitrust laws. 

However, Apple’s response called the suit “wrong on the facts and the law” in an initial statement, and their team of lawyers soon gave several rebuttals to the arguments posed by the department. 

The case’s central focus is based on section two of the Sherman Act, which prohibits acquiring or maintaining monopoly power through improper means. According to CBS, the monopoly that Apple is allegedly holding is due to its hardware, app development rules and iPhone features — involving iMessage, Apple Wallet and smartwatches — to expand its business and charge higher fees. 

This complex and broad suit could last for years before a final verdict is determined. For more reliable information on the lawsuit refer to the US Department of Justice.