Apple hits back at DOJ antitrust suit paragraph by paragraph

As Apple’s antitrust case goes forward, the company has responded to each of the 236 paragraphs from the original complaint to defend itself, stating plainly that the “DOJ is wrong.”

The Department of Justice, along with multiple states accused Apple, of monopolistic practices over the App Store, iPhone, and other parts of its business. One year later, after failed attempt to have the case dismissed, Apple has filed its direct response to the antitrust lawsuit.

The filing from Apple opens with the assertion that the lawsuit “threatens the very principles that set iPhone apart in a fiercely competitive market.” Apple asserts that the complaints that led to the lawsuit come from a small number of rich and powerful third-party developers free-riding on the innovations presented by iPhone.

It is a heated rebuttal that hits at the core of the lawsuit, which AppleInsider has pointed out repeatedly is moot. Most of the DOJ’s accusations either were never true or have been remedied in recent updates.

Apple shared, once again, the five main points made by the DOJ lawsuit.

• DOJ says Apple stifles the success of “super apps,” despite the fact that Apple’s rules allow and support such apps, and indeed a multitude of “super apps” exist on the App Store today
• DOJ says Apple blocks cloud streaming games, even though Apple allows streaming-games both over the web and in the App Store where they can stream games directly to users
• DOJ says Apple degrades third-party messaging apps, even though they are widely available and enormously popular on iPhone already
• DOJ says Apple limits the functionality of third-party smartwatches, even though they can effectively pair with iPhone, share data to and from the iPhone via a companion app, and take advantage of certain functionalities Apple has developed which are expanding over time
• DOJ says Apple withholds access to iPhone hardware necessary for third-party digital wallets to use tap-to-pay technology, however, Apple developed and provides a mechanism that protects user

236 reasons why the DOJ is wrong

Apple’s response goes paragraph by paragraph to take apart the DOJ arguments. There are 236 paragraphs total, including the table of contents, preamble, headings, subheadings, and footnotes.

DOJ wants Apple to open up iPhone and its software

Obviously, there’s no way to address every single point Apple has made. Go read the full response embedded below.

If you’re following along, the original DOJ filing is available via Scribd. Apple kicks things off by stating that it admits Apple was founded in 1976, but denies that it struggled to compete with lower-priced competitors.

A lot of the DOJ filing centers around building a narrative that Apple doesn’t want competition and has designed an ecosystem around preventing just that. Apple takes the time to refute each detail, only confirming what is in documentation or history as accurate, like releasing an iPhone in 2007.

Many of the paragraphs are what Apple calls legal conclusions that don’t need a response. Any allegations made against Apple are denied.

The point Apple repeatedly tries to make is that its platform and ecosystem of apps and hardware are designed to ensure the perfect balance between consumer needs, privacy, and security. Apple says the lawsuit “seeks to attack a random collection of Apple’s design choices, degrade the privacy and security benefits of iPhone that customers value, and eliminate the competitive differentiation and consumer choice that currently exist in the marketplace.”

Apple’s nine main defenses also take a strong stance. It argues that Apple has legitimate business justifications, protected intellectual property rights, the courts have a lack of standing, no proof of injury, find the arguments moot, that the plaintiffs have no entitlement to relief, that there’s no harm to competition or consumers, and cites the doctrine of laches (the claim was made with unreasonable delay).

Revisiting the DOJ’s antitrust complaints

In spite of what the lawsuit implies, Apple is actively competing with multiple brands across multiple fronts. The idea that it has a best-selling smartwatch or a popular messaging service because of lock-in has been challenged multiple times before.

Even Apple’s commission has repeatedly been ruled as fair and legal by courts, though its anti-steering practices have not. Once the DOJ is able to submit a more detailed set of arguments with examples, it’ll be easier to understand the goals of the lawsuit.

The original filing suggested Apple prevented “super apps” from forming, didn’t allow game streaming services, didn’t allow cross-platform messaging apps, purposefully reduced competing smartwatch functionality, and limited digital wallets.

Game streaming is already possible on iPhone and iPad

Super apps

The “super app” argument has been heard a few times before. It essentially boils down to Apple not allowing apps to become their own kind of operating system with internal app stores, banking, chat features, and more baked into one app.

A separate antitrust lawsuit was filed by a company named Proton over super apps. It suggests that Apple allowing WeChat to exist in China should mean they can exist elsewhere too.

Game streaming

The game streaming services complaint has already been addressed, though no one has bitten so far. If Microsoft wanted to, it could submit an Xbox streaming service to iOS as an app, but it hasn’t.

Cross-platform messaging options

Apple’s Messages app now supports RCS, the cross-platform messaging protocol that’s better than SMS. Users also have the ability to select different default messaging apps like Messenger as of iOS 18.2.

Smartwatch compatibility

There have been complaints from third-party smartwatch makers about integrations. Pebble returned and is compatible with iPhone, but the maker has complained about how it can’t compete with the options offered by Apple Watch.

The DOJ could seek to force Apple to offer more options and APIs. There’s no clear way to do this without Apple having to invent new systems from scratch since it won’t be offering its apps on third-party stores.

Apple Wallet and NFC

Apple’s NFC reader has new functionality that lets third-party apps take advantage. For example, Square can now accept tap-to-pay from cards and phones when interfacing directly with the iPhone.

However, this likely won’t be enough for the DOJ antitrust lawsuit. It will likely seek to have Apple allow users to select default payment apps instead of locking it to Apple Pay, like in the EU.

It’s going to be a long and brutal case that may take years to shake out. Apple is going to push back hard against opening up its platforms to third-parties and potential privacy and security violations, so expect things to go as roughly as they have with the EU Digital Markets Act.

Apple DOJ antitrust response July 29, 2025 by Wesley Hilliard