Apple wins dispute over government documents in US antitrust case

A retired federal judge has sided with Apple in the DOJ antitrust case: The company is allowed to request internal documents from 14 US agencies – including the CIA, NSA, and the Department of Defense. The US government had wanted to prevent exactly that.

The US antitrust case against Apple has been ongoing since March 2024 and revolves around the same fundamental question that has long plagued the company in Europe as well: Is Apple's closed ecosystem a legitimate product advantage or an anti-competitive barrier? In the EU, courts have already largely ruled against Apple on this issue – most recently by confirming its gatekeeper status. The US proceedings, however, are still in the midst of the evidentiary phase, and there Apple has now secured a procedural advantage.

Why Apple is demanding files from 14 US authorities

Apple had asked a court in New Jersey to compel 14 federal agencies to release internal documents – including several intelligence agencies such as the CIA, NSA, and FBI, as well as the Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce. The documents in question concern how these agencies evaluate, procure, and deploy smartphones and wearables.

Apple's line of defense is this: If security and intelligence agencies are choosing the iPhone because they value its privacy and security features, Apple argues that this supports the claim that the practices attacked by the Department of Justice are genuine product advantages – and not anti-competitive constraints.

The government countered that the authorities did not regulate smartphones, were not part of the process, and did not purchase devices like ordinary consumers. The requirements were too broad, disproportionately burdensome, and could involve information requiring confidentiality or classified as state secrets.

The judge rules in Apple's favor – with clear limits

The dispute was decided by retired federal judge Jose Linares, who was appointed as Special Discovery Master to remove such detailed questions from the main proceedings. His ruling of July 14 is unequivocal: all documents requested by Apple are relevant to the core allegations of the case. The government failed to adequately substantiate its objections – and the cited state secret privilege does not apply under these circumstances.

This is not a carte blanche, however. Authorities may still withhold individual documents if they classify them as protected – but they must then list them in a separate directory. Disputes over such classifications could trigger a new round of the evidentiary proceedings, including a possible internal review by Linares. While Apple is granted the fundamental right of access, the actual release of the documents could be protracted.

In Europe, the cartel dispute is running in the opposite direction

For users in Germany and Austria, the US trial itself is less important than what it reveals about Apple's overall situation. In the US, Apple is still defending its closed system in court and gathering evidence to support it. In the EU, this battle has long been decided: The Digital Markets Act already compels Apple to open up – for example, by enabling AirPods pairing with Meta.

This enforced openness has two sides for European users. It brings interoperability that doesn't exist elsewhere – but also gaps: features like Siri AI won't launch in the EU for the time being because the DMA stands in their way. Switzerland is neither in the EU nor the EEA and is not subject to the DMA – these restrictions don't apply there.

For Apple users in the EU, the other front is what counts

The US lawsuit could, in an extreme case, force Apple to make structural changes to the App Store and the iPhone ecosystem. However, there is still a long way to go, involving the presentation of evidence and potential appeals. In Europe, the DMA is already directly intervening in Apple's product policy. The partial victory in New Jersey does not change this sequence: What Apple users in the EU will actually experience will still be decided in Brussels – not in a US courtroom. (Image: Shutterstock / SWKStock)