The Business Law Review at Georgetown

Filed on March 21, 2024

15:2 Antitrust Litigation, Nature of Suit: 410 Anti-Trust

District Court, D. New Jersey

Docket Number: No. 2:24-cv-04055

Participating States: AZ, CA, CT, DC, ME, MI, MN, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OK, OR, TN, VT, WI

PDF of Complaint (hyperlinked)

PDF of Amended Complaint (hyperlinked)

PDF of Motion of Dismiss Denied (hyperlinked)

DOJ’s Classification of Case Violations: Horizontal Merger, Other Restraint of Trade, Monopolization, Attempt to Monopolize, Vertical Merger

Case Summary: 

The DOJ and sixteen states argue that Apple illegally maintains a monopoly over smartphones. This is for five main reasons: (1) They disrupt apps that function beyond IOS platforms to make it harder to switch to other smartphones, (2) They have blocked cloud-streaming app development that is inaccessible without additional payment, (3)  exclusion of multi-platform messaging apps, (4) Apple watches have limited third party functionality and, (5) Third Party apps have limited access to Apple Wallet (NAAG). According to the plaintiffs, Apple’s rules and technical barriers suppress competition, harm consumer choice, and make it harder to switch  from an iPhone to another device  Apple denies these claims as they argue that its ecosystem is designed for security and product integrity, not anti-competitive control. This case matters because the court’s ruling could reshape how tech companies design digital ecosystems and set the future rules for mobile platforms worldwide.

Key Characteristics
This  case is important because it tests how much control a company can legally exercise over its software ecosystem before it crosses into antitrust violations. Apple’s rules shape the experiences of millions of consumers and app developers; meaning, this dispute has a very wide reach. It also carries global implications because  regulators in the EU, UK, Japan, and India have similar investigations, meaning the outcome in the United States could influence international standards. Japan’s Fair Trade Commission made similar cases before its dismissal following Apple’s revisional measure back in 2021 (JFTC). This case is the largest antitrust action against a U.S. tech company since the government’s case against Microsoft (Justia).  It matters for business law because it brings together questions about platform governance, data control, interoperability, and how markets function when one company designs both the device and the operating environment around it. We chose this case because it sits at the center of consumer markets and software architecture, and its ruling could shape how tech companies design their systems and compete for years to come.

Current Status
As of the most recent filings, the case remains in active pre-trial litigation. Parties have exchanged briefs that address Apple’s challenges to the complaint. This includes arguments about the scope of the alleged smartphone monopoly and whether Apple’s conduct qualifies as exclusionary under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The court is currently reviewing extensive technical and economic materials submitted by both sides. No trial date has been set yet, but the court has continued to issue  scheduling orders as the case moves toward discovery.

What to Expect
Because the case is still early in litigation, the next steps will likely include a discovery schedule that includes document production, depositions, and expert analyses. We would also see possible additional motions from Apple that directly challenge specific parts of the complaint. There is a chance for pre-trial hearings that would address the admissibility of technical evidence about the iOS ecosystem. As with all cases in this tracker, these expectations are procedural — actual developments may vary based on the court’s pace and the parties’ filings.

Last Review Timestamp
Last reviewed on December 7, 2025, 4:00 PM EST.

This case is still in the discovery phase. The updated activities are mostly about the addition of more documents into the case. The Plaintiff’s Update Letter (hyperlinked) contains information regarding next steps. In January 2026, the DOJ and plaintiff notified that court that they finished negotiating search terms with Apple. This means that there is a reduction of the number of documents Apple must review. Instead of roughly 11 million documents, Apple now needs to review around 4 million. This undercuts Apple’s earlier argument that discovery was too large and time-consuming. 

Additionally, there is still the ongoing dispute over which Apple employees’ records must be produced. The parties have agreed on only 4 out of 19 proposed custodians. Apple has also refused to provide certain internal HR data that would help identify relevant custodians, despite there being proposed privacy limits. In the letter, the plaintiffs are asking the court to step in and set a deadline and procedure to finish resolving custodian issues so discovery can move forward.

A case management conference (CMC)  is set for January 22, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. A CMC is a meeting between the judge and the lawyers to organize how the case will move forward. No evidence is argued, it is to cover the logistics of the case. At a CMC, the judge typically sets or adjusts deadlines for discovery, decides how disputes (like document fights) should be handled, discusses scheduling for motions, and makes sure the case is not stalling. In short, it is the court stepping in to keep the case on track and moving efficiently.

Filed on May 23, 2024

Docket No. 1:24-CV-03973-AS

Civil Merger

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Participating States: AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY

PDF of Complaint

PDF of Amended Complaint

PDF of Motion of Dismiss Denied

PDF of Motion to Transfer Denied

PDF of Amended Protective Order

DOJ’s Classification of Case Violations: Civil Merger, Horizontal Merger, Antitrust Division

Case Summary

The DOJ and roughly thirty states argue that Live Nation and Ticketmaster illegally maintain monopoly power over live event ticketing and concert promotion. According to the government, Live Nation uses its control over promotion, venues, and ticketing tools to keep competitors out and force artists and venues to rely on Ticketmaster. The complaint states that this structure raises prices for consumers and limits innovation in the ticketing market. Live Nation denies these claims because it argues that it competes fairly and that market conditions instead of monopoly control can explain pricing and venue relationships. The case matters because it questions the structure of the live events industry and whether one company can control both the supply chain and consumer-facing ticket sales.

Key Characteristics

This case examines how vertical integration in entertainment can shape consumer markets and limit competition. Clearly, millions of fans, artists, promoters, and venues are affected by Ticketmaster which gives the case a wide public reach. In this economy, public attention to ticketing fairness is high, especially after several large-scale sales failures that brought national scrutiny. The scale of the lawsuit makes it one of the most significant antitrust challenges in entertainment in decades and raises questions about how competition law applies to industries that rely on exclusive contracts (NAAG). We chose this case because it highlights the tension between market efficiency and market control, and the ruling could influence how ticketing platforms, promoters, and venue contracts operate going forward.

Current Status

The case is in active pre-trial litigation. Since filing the complaint, the court has entered scheduling orders and both sides have begun early procedural steps. Live Nation has signaled that it plans to challenge the complaint and contest the DOJ’s market definitions and harm theories. Currently, there are discovery preparations  and the government continues to add exhibits and economic materials to the record. No trial date has been finalized but the case remains fully active on the docket. 

What to Expect

Live Nation will likely file a motion to dismiss or narrow the complaint, followed by detailed briefing on market structure, exclusivity agreements, and vertical integration. The court may schedule hearings on evidence and expert reports as the case moves toward full discovery. Because the DOJ is seeking structural relief,  litigation is expected to be lengthy. These expectations describe standard procedural steps, and actual developments may differ depending on the court’s timeline and the parties’ filings.

Last Review Timestamp

Last reviewed at 5:00 pm EST on December 7.

As of January 18, 2026, there are no notable updates at this time. The case is still in its discovery phase, where attorneys on both sides are working on selecting opinions and counsels.

Filed on May 26, 2021

Docket No. 2:21-cv-00693-RSM

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Antitrust Litigation, Class Action, Consumer Protection, High Tech Litigation

PDF of Amended Consolidated Complaint

PDF of Motion of Dismiss DeniedPDF of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Amazon to Produce Documents and Information Granted

Case Summary

Plaintiff argues that Amazon uses unfair marketplace practices that keep prices artificially high across the internet. They argue that Amazon’s rules penalize sellers who offer lower prices on other platforms, which discourages competition and leads to higher prices for buyers (HBSS). They also claim that Amazon’s “Buy Box” system favors sellers who comply with Amazon’s pricing expectations. Amazon denies these allegations, arguing that its practices promote trust and efficiency for customers and that the plaintiffs have not shown true anticompetitive harm. The case matters because it challenges one of Amazon’s core business models and could reshape how online marketplaces structure pricing, seller rules, and platform visibility.

Key Characteristics

This case focuses on how a dominant digital marketplace can influence prices outside its own platform. The allegations center on Amazon’s ability to pressure sellers through two different methods: internal ranking systems and platform visibility. This raises questions about how control over digital infrastructure affects market competition. This also brings up the legal scrutiny around how influential algorithms are allowed to get when it comes to decisions in commerce, especially when there are significant price effects. Since the court allowed the case to proceed past Amazon’s motion to dismiss, it signals that these theories of harm are strong enough for full litigation. We chose this case because it offers a clear look at how consumer class actions can challenge platform power.

Current Status

The court has denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss which means the case is moving forward. The parties are entering the discovery phase, where they will exchange documents, data, and expert reports about how Amazon’s marketplace systems operate. There are also scheduling orders being set for depositions and expert testimony. No trial date has been confirmed but the case is active and progressing through early litigation steps.

What to Expect

There will likely be discovery on Amazon’s pricing algorithms, internal seller-ranking metrics, and communications about price parity rules. The plaintiffs may file motions to certify the class, which would expand the scope of the case. Because the case deals with complex platform data and economic modeling, expert testimony will play a major role. These procedural expectations are general and may shift depending on filings and court deadlines.

Last Review Timestamp

Last reviewed on December 7, at 6:00 PM EST

As of January 5th, there have been motions to reset trial for November 2, 2026. However, there is no update as to an official date or time as of January 18th, 2026. The rest of the case is still in its discovery phase.