The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has been granted time to present its own oral arguments during the upcoming Apple v. Epic Games appeal, along with the State of California.
On Friday, US Dept. of Justice officials filed a request to present 10 minutes of oral arguments during the trial, in addition to the 20 minutes of argument time per side. The lawyers said they wanted time to explain to the court the proper legal framework for evaluating the antitrust claims against Apple.
Though the Justice Department’s arguments will technically be in support of “neither side,” per court filings, its intention is to spell out its existing concerns over how the lower courts had originally ruled on the case. In an amicus brief filed back on January 27, 2022, U.S. officials indicated there were “multiple legal errors” in the district court’s analysis of US antitrust law, the Sherman Act, which could “imperil effective antitrust enforcement, especially in the digital economy,” the new filing explained.
Specifically, the DoJ had concerns over various aspects of that analysis, including how the lower court had too narrowly interpreted parts of the law, as well as other issues related to the lower court’s misunderstanding of the market and Apple’s monopoly power with regard to pricing, among other things. The lawyers asked for time to present these errors to the court and to explain how, if uncorrected, they could harm antitrust enforcement beyond this case alone.
The US’s request to join the arguments for this legal battle follows the news that the Justice Department is in the early stages of preparing its own antitrust lawsuit against Apple. Lawyers for the U.S. government have been interviewing impacted parties, including app developers large and small, and even hardware makers like Tile. It likely doesn’t want any decision in the Apple-Epic ruling to set a precedent in terms of antitrust law that could harm its own forthcoming case.
In addition to the DoJ request, the State of California also asked for time to present arguments in court in order to present its views on how the court should evaluate its consumer protection law known as California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Featured News
Chamber of Commerce Sues to Overturn FTC Non-Compete Ban
Apr 24, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Chief Warns of Healthcare Price Fixing Risks Amid Tech Advancements
Apr 24, 2024 by
CPI
Amazon’s Investment in Anthropic Faces Antitrust Scrutiny
Apr 24, 2024 by
CPI
Italian Antitrust Authority Fines Amazon €10 Million for Unfair Trade Practices
Apr 24, 2024 by
CPI
Tuta Mail Raises Alarm Over Google Search Ranking Plunge Amidst DMA Rollout
Apr 24, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI