In the wake of a sweeping antitrust case brought forth by the US Justice Department and 15 states against tech giant Apple, the company finds itself embroiled in a flurry of new legal battles.
At least three proposed class-action lawsuits have been filed in California and New Jersey federal courts, accusing Apple of monopolizing the smartphone market and inflating product costs through anticompetitive practices.
The lawsuits, filed by iPhone owners seeking to represent millions of consumers, echo the allegations made by the Justice Department. They claim that Apple violated U.S. antitrust laws by stifling technology advancements for messaging apps, digital wallets, and other features that could have fostered competition in the smartphone market.
Apple, headquartered in Cupertino, California, has denied the government’s accusations but has yet to comment on the newly filed consumer lawsuits.
Related: The DOJ’s New Monopoly Suit Against Apple Targets Lock-In Tactics
Steve Berman, an attorney from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, whose firm filed one of the new cases, expressed satisfaction with the Justice Department’s alignment with their approach. Berman’s firm had previously sued Apple over allegations of hindering competition for its Apple Pay mobile wallet.
Meanwhile, attorneys representing the other newly filed cases have not provided immediate comments to Reuters.
Apple is no stranger to legal battles surrounding its business practices. In February, a judge ruled that the company must face a class-action lawsuit alleging that it monopolized the market for iPhone apps. Despite these challenges, Apple continues to contest the claims.
The outcome of these lawsuits could have significant implications for Apple and the broader smartphone industry, potentially reshaping competition dynamics and consumer access to technology.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Judge Allows FTC Antitrust Case Against Amazon to Move Forward
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
SAP Leader Urges Caution on EU AI Rules, Warns of Competitive Disadvantage
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado’s Grocery Workers Unite to Oppose $24.6 Billion Supermarket Merge
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Warns Businesses of Tougher Enforcement
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Top Antitrust Lawyers Launch New Boutique Firm
Oct 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh