The United States of America has sued Apple. The digital behemoth is charged with stifling competition and controlling the smartphone market. Following the filing of the case, Apple has refuted these accusations made against them.
The Justice Department further claimed in the lawsuit that the business mishandled its authority over the iPhone App Store. It discusses using illicit means to detract from competitors' goods.
These four accusations were also directed towards Apple.
The business leverages its market dominance to increase revenue from small businesses, retailers, developers, artists, publishers, and consumers.
Apple has barred banks and other financial institutions from using its tap-to-pay technology and made it harder for rival companies' smartwatches to connect to the iPhone.
Apple is also charged with putting a halt to the development of super applications. For a long time, Meta and other software companies have wanted to release super-apps like this on the iPhone.
Apple's new regulations are detrimental to small businesses that compete with some of Apple's services as well as consumers.
Following the lawsuit's announcement, Apple's shares dropped.
On Wall Street on Thursday, the announcement of the lawsuit against Apple caused its stock to drop by 4.09%.
According to Apple, the complaint is incorrect in both fact and law.
"Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate antitrust laws," stated US Attorney General Merrick Garland. Apple's stranglehold on smartphones will only get stronger if this is not challenged.
According to Apple, this action threatens both our brand and the values that set Apple products apart in the cutthroat industry. "We will defend this lawsuit because it is wrong under the law and the facts."
Apple had discontinued the newest smartwatch's sales in the United States last year.
Apple discontinued selling the most recent Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 in December of last year. The blood oxygen feature of these smartwatches is the subject of a patent dispute, which led the business to make this move. Nevertheless, the US Court of Appeal subsequently granted the business relief.
