# United States v. Apple (2024– ) **Filed:** March 21, 2024 by DOJ, 15 states and the District of Columbia · D.N.J., Judge Julien Neals Alleges §2 monopolization of a "performance smartphones" market through five categories of conduct: suppressing **super-apps** that would make the operating system interchangeable, blocking **cloud-gaming** services, degrading **cross-platform messaging** (the green-bubble complaint, formalized), restricting third-party **smartwatch** interoperability, and limiting access to the **digital wallet** and NFC hardware. The structural difficulty is [[Verizon v. Trinko]] (2004), which held there is no general §2 duty to deal with rivals. DOJ's answer is that this is not a refusal-to-deal case but a course of conduct designed to keep users locked in — [[Apple]] making its platform worse in specific ways whose only coherent explanation is exclusion. The motion to dismiss was **denied on 2025-06-30** and the case proceeded into discovery, where it remains as of August 2026 with no trial date. It is the youngest of the four platform cases and the least advanced. > Stub — fill out. See [[US Antitrust and Monopoly Timeline]].