Overview
Apple controls what apps you can install, what features they can offer, and how much they cost. On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit ruled that's perfectly legal—at least when it comes to shutting out a competitor's heart monitoring app. The decision caps a five-year battle with medical device maker AliveCor, which claimed Apple killed its SmartRhythm app by changing the Apple Watch heart rate algorithm in 2018. Judge Michelle Friedland held that Apple had no obligation to share its technology with rivals, invoking the rarely-successful refusal-to-deal defense. The same day, India doubled down on its right to impose antitrust penalties based on Apple's $380 billion global revenue—not just its Indian earnings—putting the company at risk of a $38 billion fine.
But AliveCor is one skirmish in a much bigger war. The DOJ sued Apple in March 2024 for allegedly monopolizing the smartphone market, targeting everything from green text bubbles to blocked smartwatch features. The EU fined Apple $2 billion over Spotify's complaints and another $500 million for Digital Markets Act violations. Epic Games won contempt rulings forcing Apple to loosen App Store payment restrictions. Courts in the U.S. denied Apple's motion to dismiss the DOJ case in June 2025, clearing a path to trial likely in 2026-2028. At stake: whether one company can build a locked ecosystem worth $3 trillion, or whether that's illegal monopolization.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
Maker of FDA-cleared smartphone and smartwatch ECG devices for detecting atrial fibrillation.
Federal agency enforcing antitrust laws to promote competition and prevent monopolies.
Creator of Fortnite and Unreal Engine, challenging App Store commission structure.
Leading music streaming platform challenging Apple's App Store anti-steering rules.
World's most valuable company, maker of iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch.
India's antitrust regulator enforcing competition law and investigating tech platforms.
Timeline
-
Ninth Circuit rejects AliveCor antitrust appeal
Court RulingJudge Friedland holds Apple's refusal to maintain compatibility was lawful, not anticompetitive.
-
India defends global turnover-based antitrust penalties
Regulatory DefenseCompetition Commission of India argues in Delhi High Court that antitrust fines should be calculated on Apple's $380B global revenue, not just Indian earnings, putting Apple at risk of $38B penalty. Hearing scheduled January 27.
-
EU court dismisses Apple-Amazon appeal on Italian fine deadline
Court RulingEU's top court rejects Apple and Amazon's plea to extend deadline for €173M Italian antitrust fine.
-
Ninth Circuit affirms contempt ruling against Apple
Appellate DecisionAppeals court largely upholds Epic victory, orders lower court to determine fair commission rates.
-
Court denies Apple's motion to dismiss DOJ suit
Court DecisionJudge Neals finds allegations sufficient to proceed to trial on monopolization claims.
-
Court finds Apple in contempt in Epic case
Court RulingJudge Rogers rules Apple willfully violated anti-steering injunction, refers for criminal contempt.
-
EU fines Apple €500 million for DMA breaches
Regulatory ActionCommission penalizes Apple for failing to comply with Digital Markets Act.
-
Apple files motion to dismiss DOJ case
Legal ResponseCompany argues complaint fails to demonstrate monopolistic behavior.
-
EU issues preliminary DMA violation findings
InvestigationCommission informs Apple of non-compliance with Digital Markets Act requirements.
-
DOJ sues Apple for iPhone monopolization
Legal FilingFederal government alleges Apple illegally maintains smartphone monopoly through exclusionary conduct.
-
EU fines Apple €1.8 billion over Spotify complaint
Regulatory ActionCommission finds decade of anti-steering abuse in music streaming market.
-
District court dismisses AliveCor antitrust case
Court RulingJudge grants Apple summary judgment, finding no antitrust violation.
-
Supreme Court declines Epic-Apple appeals
Court DecisionHigh court leaves lower court rulings in place, anti-steering injunction stands.
-
Epic wins anti-steering injunction against Apple
Court RulingJudge orders Apple to allow developers to link to external payment options.
-
AliveCor sues Apple for antitrust violations
Legal FilingMedical device maker alleges Apple monopolized heart rhythm analysis app market.
-
Epic adds direct payments to Fortnite, gets banned
Legal TriggerEpic deliberately violates App Store rules to provoke antitrust confrontation.
-
EU opens formal antitrust probe into Apple
InvestigationEuropean Commission launches investigation into App Store rules following Spotify complaint.
-
AliveCor discontinues KardiaBand sales
Business DecisionCompany pulls Apple Watch ECG band from market after algorithm change renders it ineffective.
-
Spotify files EU antitrust complaint against Apple
Legal FilingMusic streaming giant alleges Apple uses App Store rules to handicap competitors.
-
watchOS 5 changes heart rate algorithm
Technical ChangeApple shifts from Heart Rate Path Optimizer to Neural Network algorithm, breaking AliveCor's SmartRhythm.
-
Apple unveils competing ECG feature in Series 4
Product AnnouncementApple announces FDA-cleared electrocardiogram built directly into Apple Watch, entering AliveCor's market.
-
AliveCor launches KardiaBand for Apple Watch
Product LaunchFirst FDA-cleared ECG accessory for Apple Watch goes on sale after European debut.
Scenarios
Apple Forced to Open the Walled Garden
Discussed by: DOJ complaint, EU enforcement actions, antitrust scholars at Berkeley Tech Law Journal
The DOJ wins at trial, forcing Apple to allow third-party app stores, remove messaging discrimination, enable full third-party smartwatch functionality, and open NFC payments. The EU's Digital Markets Act enforcement accelerates similar changes globally. Apple's services revenue takes a hit as developers route around the App Store commission, but iPhone hardware sales remain strong. The remedies mirror the Microsoft consent decree from 2001—ironically, the decree DOJ credits with enabling Apple's rise. Epic's contempt victory establishes commission caps around 10-15% instead of 30%. Platform power shifts from gatekeepers to developers.
Courts Uphold Apple's Integration as Lawful
Discussed by: Apple's legal arguments, refusal-to-deal precedent from Trinko and Aspen Skiing
The AliveCor victory becomes the template. Courts distinguish Apple's conduct from classic monopolization—the company didn't refuse to deal with competitors, it just refused to design products for their benefit. Judges accept Apple's argument that forced compatibility would reduce incentives to innovate and create security risks. The DOJ case fails because prosecutors can't prove consumer harm—iPhone users love their ecosystem and prices haven't increased. The EU fines stick but don't force fundamental business model changes. Apple pays billions in penalties but maintains control over the platform. The refusal-to-deal doctrine expands to shield tech platforms making unilateral design choices.
Negotiated Consent Decree Splits the Difference
Discussed by: Antitrust enforcement history, settlement patterns in Microsoft and AT&T cases
Facing years of expensive litigation and regulatory uncertainty, Apple settles with the DOJ and EU. The consent decree allows third-party payment options but lets Apple charge a reduced commission for platform services. Apple opens NFC and allows competing app marketplaces but maintains security review authority. Green bubble discrimination ends through negotiated RCS adoption. The company agrees to behavioral monitors for 5-7 years. It's the path Microsoft took in 2001—neither total victory nor devastating defeat. Apple preserves most ecosystem advantages while making enough concessions to end the legal siege. Both sides declare victory.
Historical Context
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
1998-2001What Happened
The DOJ sued Microsoft for illegally maintaining its Windows operating system monopoly by bundling Internet Explorer and restricting PC manufacturers from installing competing browsers. The government argued Microsoft feared middleware technologies like Netscape and Java could enable cross-platform applications, eroding Windows' dominance. After initially ordering a breakup, an appeals court reversed and the case settled with a consent decree imposing restrictions on Microsoft's conduct that expired in 2011.
Outcome
Short term: Microsoft avoided breakup but faced years of behavioral restrictions and compliance monitoring.
Long term: The consent decree arguably opened space for new platforms—the DOJ's Apple complaint explicitly credits Microsoft restrictions with enabling the iPhone's success.
Why It's Relevant
The DOJ frames its Apple case as Microsoft redux: a dominant platform using compatibility restrictions to kill cross-platform technologies that threaten its ecosystem control.
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.
1985What Happened
The Supreme Court found a dominant ski resort violated antitrust law by terminating a joint ticketing arrangement with a smaller competitor. The monopolist previously offered an all-Aspen ticket covering both resorts, then unilaterally ended the profitable cooperation to squeeze out the rival. The Court held that abandoning a voluntary course of dealing without legitimate business justification could constitute illegal monopolization.
Outcome
Short term: The dominant resort was found liable under Sherman Act Section 2.
Long term: Aspen Skiing remains the primary Supreme Court precedent imposing refusal-to-deal liability, though later cases like Trinko limited its reach.
Why It's Relevant
AliveCor tried to fit its facts into Aspen Skiing—Apple previously shared heart rate data, then changed algorithms to kill a rival's app. The Ninth Circuit rejected the analogy, treating it as lawful product evolution rather than anticompetitive refusal.
Epic Games v. Apple Initial Trial
2020-2021What Happened
Epic deliberately violated App Store rules by adding direct payments to Fortnite, triggering removal and a lawsuit claiming Apple monopolized mobile gaming. After a three-week trial, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled Apple didn't monopolize—iPhone and Android compete in a broader market. But she found Apple's anti-steering restrictions violated California unfair competition law, enjoining Apple from blocking links to external payment options.
Outcome
Short term: Apple won on monopolization but lost on anti-steering, forced to allow developer links to outside payments.
Long term: Apple's compliance attempts led to contempt findings in 2025, with courts ordering genuine competition in payment options and fair commission negotiations.
Why It's Relevant
Epic's partial victory created the roadmap for other challengers—even if courts won't break up the platform, they'll force cracks in the wall around specific anticompetitive practices.