Questionable Monopoly: Despite the DOJ’s recent antitrust lawsuit against the company, Apple should not be be considered a monopoly

The US Department of Justice recently filed a federal lawsuit along with 16 state attorney generals against Apple for breach of antitrust laws — laws that regulate the conduct of a business to prevent monopolies — on March 21.

The lawsuit claims Apple’s influence on the tech market makes it a monopoly. Specifically citing the company for maintaining unfair prices, locking customers into continued purchases and blocking outside apps and software programs, discriminating against other cell phone carriers.But if the DOJ wins, the case could set a dangerous precedent, empowering the government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology.


Though it’s a nuisance to see a green text bubble in a group chat, it was never enough to consider the company a monopoly.

Currently, Apple has more than 70% market share of smartphones in the U.S. if you measure by revenue, according to the DOJ. This market share is significantly less than other recent cases covering antitrust law. For instance, in 2001 Windows was sued for a monopoly only after they achieved a 90% share of the market.

However, the popularity of the device is not grounds for a monopoly, instead the suit focuses on business practices extorting or stunting other companies in the field by banning apps and software from being used on Apple devices. The DOJ is asking the court to stop Apple from “using its control of app distribution to undermine cross-platform technologies such as super apps and cloud streaming apps.”

Isn’t this just asking the company to play nice with others? Developing internal and original technology is nothing new for companies.

A major complaint in the suit is that Apple requires unreasonable fees for some in-app purchases. This is similar to a claim from Spotify, which in 2022 claimed that Apple requires a 15-30% cut of their paid subscription services and audiobook purchases, according to Business Insider.

But does this mean companies should not receive compensation for allowing others to use their services? Last time I checked, that’s not how capitalism works.

While I agree that the prevalence of iPhones does overshadow many other companies, this does not prevent people from buying products from their biggest competitors, Android and Samsung — which are even cheaper to purchase.

A company always rises to the top through a combination of hard work, luck and hardball business tactics. Apple is no different.

Competitors complain.

Governments intervene.

Now the company is stalled long enough for competitors to find a new way to compete — just like Apple and Google did against Microsoft in the 2000s, as their new smartphone rendered desktop PCs and Windows much less relevant.

Even now I feel the irony of writing this article on my MacBook Air Apple sells to schools across the country, predisposing students from a young age to their products. But this case is a threat to the entire tech industry. But I can tell it has more bark than bite, at least for now.