This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.
The US antitrust case against Apple isn't currently about the iPhone, but about a deadline: By what date must Apple release internal documents? Both sides have now informed the court that they cannot reach an agreement – and the answer will determine how long the proceedings will last.
The US Department of Justice, the participating states, and Apple filed a joint notice of stalemate (case number 2:24-cv-04055, document 565) with the Federal Court in New Jersey on October 21. The notice is addressed to Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre, who is responsible for disputed evidentiary issues in the case. The lawsuit, which began in March 2024, accuses Apple of maintaining a monopoly in the smartphone market. Simultaneously, both sides are reportedly negotiating a settlement, which developers fear will result in overly lenient terms.
Key Facts at a Glance
- The point of contention is the deadline by which Apple must submit internal documents – currently June 20, 2025.
- The plaintiffs want Apple to update its documents by 30 days before the end of the evidence period, i.e., by spring 2027.
- Apple refuses: This would mean collecting documents again from 54 employees for a period of 22 months, and would delay the process by months.
- The taking of evidence is now expected to be completed by the end of May 2027, ten months later than originally planned.
A deadline from an old timetable
In the summer of 2025, both sides agreed to Apple's proposal to consider documents submitted by June 20, 2025. At that time, Apple was expected to submit the substantial portion of its documentation by mid-December 2025, with the entire evidentiary hearing scheduled to conclude by the end of July 2026. Since then, the timeline has shifted significantly.
| Deadline | Originally | Current |
|---|---|---|
| Deadline for Apple documents | 20.06.2025 | June 20, 2025 (disputed) |
| Documents essentially submitted | 15.12.2025 | 15.06.2026 |
| End of the taking of evidence | 31.07.2026 | End of May 2027 |
The plaintiffs argue that their agreement to the earlier deadline was based on the old schedule, which was extended at Apple's request. Without more recent documentation, they cannot prove how the objectionable behavior continues – and that is precisely the subject of their lawsuit. They consider Apple's offer to review individual claims on a case-by-case basis impractical.
Apple's counter-argument
Apple points to the effort invested in the previous round. Between June 2025 and June 2026, the company collected and reviewed more than eleven million documents from 54 employees and dozens of other sources, submitting over two million of them, in addition to millions of documents from the investigation phase. The documents cover a period of 18 years, and hundreds of external experts were involved.
According to Apple, a complete update would take several months. Providing the updated information up to 30 days before the end of the evidentiary hearing is not feasible because almost all witness interviews would already be completed by then. Apple intends to continue complying with targeted requests for further information that are clearly relevant, and has already done so three times.
Apple denies the accusation that it alone caused the extensions. The government has still not provided documents in response to most of Apple's own requests, which were submitted over 15 months ago. Added to this is the dispute over documents from 14 federal agencies, the release of which the court temporarily suspended in September.
Why timing matters
I see this dispute primarily as a signal regarding the length of the proceedings. According to Apple, the plaintiffs first raised their claim at a hearing on September 25; Apple interpreted the court's ruling to mean that the issue should only be addressed after a new timetable has been agreed upon. The fact that the plaintiffs nevertheless now want a decision suggests that they are maintaining pressure on Apple – also in light of the ongoing settlement negotiations.
For users in Switzerland, the dispute will not change anything immediately. In the EU, Apple is already required by the DMA to open iOS to third-party accessories – precisely the interoperability that is at the heart of the US proceedings. The DMA does not apply in Switzerland. The outcome of the US negotiations will not be decided until the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing in spring 2027 at the earliest – or through a settlement before then.
Do you think Apple and the DOJ will reach an agreement beforehand, or will the proceedings continue until the end? Share your prediction in the comments.
