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 monopolizing the smartphone market, 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, while 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 over whether a locked ecosystem worth $3 trillion is illegal monopolization.
22 events
Latest: January 8th, 2026 · 5 months ago
Showing 8 of 22
JK to step
Tap a bar to jump to that date
Jump to
January 2026
Ninth Circuit rejects AliveCor antitrust appeal
LatestCourt Ruling
Judge Friedland holds Apple's refusal to maintain compatibility was lawful, not anticompetitive.
India defends global turnover-based antitrust penalties
Regulatory Defense
Competition 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 Ruling
EU's top court rejects Apple and Amazon's plea to extend deadline for €173M Italian antitrust fine.
December 2025
Ninth Circuit affirms contempt ruling against Apple
Judge Neals finds allegations sufficient to proceed to trial on monopolization claims.
April 2025
Court finds Apple in contempt in Epic case
Court Ruling
Judge Rogers rules Apple willfully violated anti-steering injunction, refers for criminal contempt.
January 2025
EU fines Apple €500 million for DMA breaches
Regulatory Action
Commission penalizes Apple for failing to comply with Digital Markets Act.
August 2024
Apple files motion to dismiss DOJ case
Legal Response
Company argues complaint fails to demonstrate monopolistic behavior.
June 2024
EU issues preliminary DMA violation findings
Investigation
Commission informs Apple of non-compliance with Digital Markets Act requirements.
March 2024
DOJ sues Apple for iPhone monopolization
Legal Filing
Federal government alleges Apple illegally maintains smartphone monopoly through exclusionary conduct.
EU fines Apple €1.8 billion over Spotify complaint
Regulatory Action
Commission finds decade of anti-steering abuse in music streaming market.
February 2024
District court dismisses AliveCor antitrust case
Court Ruling
Judge grants Apple summary judgment, finding no antitrust violation.
January 2024
Supreme Court declines Epic-Apple appeals
Court Decision
High court leaves lower court rulings in place, anti-steering injunction stands.
September 2021
Epic wins anti-steering injunction against Apple
Court Ruling
Judge orders Apple to allow developers to link to external payment options.
December 2020
AliveCor sues Apple for antitrust violations
Legal Filing
Medical device maker alleges Apple monopolized heart rhythm analysis app market.
August 2020
Epic adds direct payments to Fortnite, gets banned
Legal Trigger
Epic deliberately violates App Store rules to provoke antitrust confrontation.
July 2020
EU opens formal antitrust probe into Apple
Investigation
European Commission launches investigation into App Store rules following Spotify complaint.
August 2019
AliveCor discontinues KardiaBand sales
Business Decision
Company pulls Apple Watch ECG band from market after algorithm change renders it ineffective.
March 2019
Spotify files EU antitrust complaint against Apple
Legal Filing
Music streaming giant alleges Apple uses App Store rules to handicap competitors.
September 2018
watchOS 5 changes heart rate algorithm
Technical Change
Apple shifts from Heart Rate Path Optimizer to Neural Network algorithm, breaking AliveCor's SmartRhythm.
Apple unveils competing ECG feature in Series 4
Product Announcement
Apple announces FDA-cleared electrocardiogram built directly into Apple Watch, entering AliveCor's market.
November 2017
AliveCor launches KardiaBand for Apple Watch
Product Launch
First FDA-cleared ECG accessory for Apple Watch goes on sale after European debut.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
1 of 3
1998-2001
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
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.
Then
Microsoft avoided breakup but faced years of behavioral restrictions and compliance monitoring.
Now
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 this matters now
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.
2 of 3
1985
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.
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.
Then
The dominant resort was found liable under Sherman Act Section 2.
Now
Aspen Skiing remains the primary Supreme Court precedent imposing refusal-to-deal liability, though later cases like Trinko limited its reach.
Why this matters now
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.
3 of 3
2020-2021
Epic Games v. Apple Initial Trial
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.
Then
Apple won on monopolization but lost on anti-steering, forced to allow developer links to outside payments.
Now
Apple's compliance attempts led to contempt findings in 2025, with courts ordering genuine competition in payment options and fair commission negotiations.
Why this matters now
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.
