The US Department of Justice wants to retroactively overturn Apple's access to files from 14 federal agencies. Apple's response has now been released – and it dismantles the justification point by point. Particularly embarrassing for the government: Two agencies didn't even explain why the matter would be too time-consuming for them.
The dispute over evidence in the US government's antitrust case against Apple has entered its next phase. In July, Apple won the right to request documents from 14 federal agencies, including the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the Department of Defense. At the end of July, the Justice Department requested that this decision be reconsidered. The response is now contained in document Dkt. 493 in case 2:24-cv-04055, filed on August 13 by Apple's attorney, Liza M. Walsh (via 9to5mac).
Key Facts at a Glance
- Apple requests that the Justice Department's request be dismissed entirely – it fails on all levels.
- The 13 subsequently submitted official statements do not constitute new evidence: they could have been submitted 13 months ago.
- The Department of Commerce and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) did not submit any statement at all.
- Several authorities cite expenditure figures without search parameters – the Foreign Ministry, for example, cites over 37,000 hours.
- A further round of written submissions is out of the question; the decision now rests with the special representative.
What the dispute is about
The Justice Department sued Apple in March 2024 for allegedly anti-competitive practices surrounding the iPhone. Apple's defense is that the challenged design choices are based on objective criteria – security and privacy.
That's precisely why the company wants the government documents. If it can be shown that US federal agencies procured iPhones specifically because of these features, it supports the argument that the stated reasoning is not a pretext. Apple brought this dispute before the relevant judge in May.
In this procedure, such detailed questions are not decided by the main judge, but by a specially appointed representative for the taking of evidence – in this case, the retired federal judge Jose Linares.
The figures that are missing from the explanations
The most interesting part of the document concerns the 13 explanations the government uses to justify the effort. Apple lists what it contains – and what it doesn't.
| Authority | Stated effort |
|---|---|
| Foreign Ministry | Over 37,000 hours, without specifying search parameters |
| NASA | 194,000 email results from "example" searches, without search terms or mailboxes. |
| Household office OMB | More than 24 million results from unspecified search terms |
| NSA | "enormous working hours", no number |
| National Intelligence Directorate | "considerable working hours", no number |
| Department of Homeland Security | I cannot currently estimate the effort required. |
Without knowing the scope and methodology of the search, the claimed effort cannot be assessed, Apple argues. Furthermore, there is a point that contradicts their own explanations: According to their own statements, the FBI and CIA maintain dedicated teams for evidence gathering and regularly provide documents in legal proceedings.
Apple interprets the fact that the Department of Commerce and the FTC did not submit any statement as a tacit admission of guilt – it cannot even be argued that an unreasonable burden would be placed on these two authorities.
Why timing matters
The formal core of the reply is a procedural argument. A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary measure under US law and requires one of three things: an interim change in the law, new and previously unavailable evidence, or a manifest error of law.
Apple counters that none of these cases apply. The government could have submitted the declarations at any time during the past 13 months since the requests were served. Those who strategically decide against it cannot later rectify this through a request for reconsideration.
The original ruling had already criticized the government for precisely this: its presentation contained no information whatsoever on how many documents would need to be reviewed, how many working hours would be required, or what costs would be incurred.
The dispute over national security
The fact that three intelligence agencies – the CIA, the NSA, and the Office of the Directorate of National Intelligence – were involved raised the question of whether confidentiality interests precluded the release of the documents. The ruling denied this with a clear explanation: National security was not affected simply because Apple had contacted certain agencies.
Apple reiterates that it will not request any classified information. The government can still cite reasons for secrecy regarding individual documents and have material classified as confidential.
The same defense line, two continents
The argument Apple is using in court is the same one that has shaped its dispute with Brussels: design decisions on the iPhone are not anti-competitive, but rather an expression of security and data protection requirements. Apple uses this argument in the EU to justify why Siri AI is not yet launching on iPhones and iPads – see the overview of the DMA dispute for details.
For you as a user in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the proceedings have no direct impact – they concern US law and the US market. The interesting aspect lies in the indirect side: Should Apple be able to demonstrate with the regulatory documents that security requirements actually drive product design, this would be an argument that would also resurface in European proceedings. We expect that Apple is retaining this evidence precisely for this purpose.
How the proceedings continue
According to the schedule set on August 4, no further written submissions are permitted. The special envoy will now decide whether to uphold his decision or review it at the government's request. The Justice Ministry's previous request reopened the dispute at the end of July.
Do you think it's appropriate for a company to be allowed to request files from intelligence agencies in antitrust proceedings – or does this evidence gathering go too far? Feel free to disagree in the comments.
- AirPods with camera: Apple's own code shows the demo video
- iOS 26.6.1 closes 29 security vulnerabilities on iPhone and iPad
- iOS 26.6.1 is here: Apple makes the final release
