Apple’s Antitrust Exposure Goes Well Beyond the DOJ Case 

Antitrust boutique Bona Law published an analysis this week outlining how existing court rulings and legal precedents could support new theories of antitrust liability against Apple, going well beyond what the DOJ has already argued in federal court.

The firm starts with market share. The DOJ lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, already established that Apple holds roughly 65% of the U.S. smartphone market, a figure that has since climbed closer to 70%. Bona Law argues that number, while significant, may not even be the most compelling figure. The firm points to markets where Apple’s control approaches 99%, specifically the apps and functions that only run inside Apple’s own iOS operating system.

The analysis also takes a close look at the End User License Agreement, the legal contract every iPhone user accepts when setting up a device. Bona Law argues the EULA could itself be treated as an exclusive dealing agreement under antitrust law, one that locks users into Apple’s ecosystem and keeps rivals out. Courts have found that an agreement does not need to be a formal supply contract to trigger antitrust scrutiny. Substantial foreclosure of competition can be enough.

The firm also argues the EULA could support a tying claim, where Apple effectively conditions access to the iPhone platform on users agreeing not to obtain apps or services from outside its approval process.

Related: Small Canadian Tech Firm Mounts Global Antitrust Fight Against Apple After App Removal

On the question of whether Apple is trying to build an illegal monopoly in adjacent markets, Bona Law writes: “Any company that demonstrates both the ability and the willingness to neutralize technologies or rivals that threaten its market position may struggle to characterize that conduct as competing on the merits.”

The firm draws a direct line to U.S. v. Microsoft, the landmark 2001 ruling that found Microsoft used contractual and technical restrictions to block competing software from threatening its dominance over PC operating systems. Bona Law argues Microsoft, not the current Apple case, is the real legal template for what comes next. The historical footnote here is notable: during the Microsoft trial, an Apple executive testified about how Microsoft tried to undermine Apple’s own cross-platform software to protect its operating system. The ruling that constrained Microsoft helped open the door for Apple to launch the iPod, iTunes, and eventually the iPhone.

Bona Law also addresses who would have legal standing to bring these claims. Developers and tech companies harmed by Apple’s ecosystem controls would likely qualify, the firm argues, because their injury is not a side effect of Apple’s conduct. It is the mechanism through which Apple allegedly maintains its market power.

The DOJ case is still working through the courts. But the Bona Law analysis suggests the legal community is already thinking several moves ahead, laying out a broader map of how Apple’s platform controls could face challenges in the years to come.