The lawsuit seeks to upend a major part of Apple’s business.

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.

      • gregorumEnglish
        61•3 months ago

        The EU passed a massive, sweeping law. This is a federal lawsuit in front of an infamously conservative and pro-business Supreme Court.

        Little will come of this.

        • @[email protected]English
          33•3 months ago

          SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases – they don’t have the expertise and single-issue cases which don’t present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.

          • gregorumEnglish
            5•3 months ago

            And Apple will appeal and appeal until they get to SCOTUS where they will win that appeal

            • @[email protected]English
              15•3 months ago

              Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.

              The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.

              • gregorumEnglish
                2•3 months ago

                This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.

                • @[email protected]English
                  11•3 months ago

                  I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.

                  • gregorumEnglish
                    2•3 months ago

                    Insulting me personally rather than attacking my argument is an ad hominem:

                    Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent’s character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is “A” makes a claim of “fact,” to which “B” asserts that “A” has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence “B” concludes that “A” has their “fact” wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.

                    Source

        • @[email protected]English
          1•3 months ago

          Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.

      • GhostalmediaEnglish
        20•3 months ago

        The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.

        Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.

    • @[email protected]English
      8•3 months ago

      If it was all Blue States, if probably agree, but it does include a few Deep Red States with North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. That makes me cautiously optimistic.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•3 months ago

          If was all Blue States, with a Democratic Federal DOJ, it’s quite possible that it’s just political messaging. With a mix of Blue & Red States, it’s still possible it’s messaging or a (rare) common-enemy, but it’s more likely they think something’s actually there, and they don’t want to waste their time playing nice with the “other side”.