Apple has filed its long-awaited Apple DOJ lawsuit answer, responding to the Justice Department’s March 2024 complaint that accuses the company of wielding an illegal smartphone monopoly. The 91-page court filing, submitted on July 29 2025, and shared by 9to5Mac, says the DOJ “fundamentally misunderstands” how the iPhone ecosystem works and warns that forcing Apple to change core design choices would “set a dangerous precedent” for the entire tech industry.
Apple’s brief argues that the DOJ selected five product areas—super apps, cloud-streaming games, messaging, smart-watch pairing, and tap-to-pay wallets—and mis-characterised them as evidence of anti-competitive conduct. The company counters that each decision balances user privacy, device security, and platform performance rather than blocking rivals or trapping customers. As proof, Apple points to recent policy shifts such as web-based cloud-gaming support, RCS adoption for cross-platform texting, and NFC access for third-party payment apps in selected regions.
Key takeaways from the answer:
-
DOJ says Apple blocks super apps; Apple notes mini-app platforms already run inside WeChat and others on the App Store.
-
DOJ cites a ban on cloud-streaming titles; Apple highlights new rules that let services stream games via the web or dedicated storefronts.
-
DOJ claims Apple degrades third-party messaging; Apple stresses that WhatsApp, Telegram, and RCS now work fully on iPhone.
-
DOJ alleges Apple limits rival smart-watches; Apple argues that watches from Garmin and Fitbit already sync health and notification data through companion apps.
-
DOJ says Apple withholds NFC for wallets; Apple points to a controlled API that protects biometric credentials while enabling bank apps to add tap-to-pay.
Apple concludes that government-mandated design changes would erode privacy and security, neutralizing features that “set iPhone apart” and reducing consumer choice, not increasing it.
With the answer on record, the lawsuit moves into discovery, where both sides exchange documents and conduct depositions. Legal analysts expect this phase to last well into 2026, echoing timelines in previous Big Tech antitrust battles. Potential outcomes range from a targeted settlement—such as expanded NFC or alternative app-store options—to a lengthy trial that could reshape App Store policy in the United States.
For developers and accessory makers the stakes are high. A court-ordered relaxation of iOS restrictions could lower fees, open new business models, and broaden hardware interoperability. Conversely, a fragmented iPhone software landscape might complicate testing and increase support overhead.
Apple says it will “vigorously defend” its vertically integrated approach, framing the dispute as a referendum on user trust rather than market power. Until the court rules, iPhone owners will see no immediate changes, but every new filing offers a clearer view of how Apple plans to protect its ecosystem.
