Apple and the US Justice Department are reportedly in early discussions over the potential for an early settlement of a 2024 iPhone antitrust suit brought about by the Biden administration.

While discussions are reportedly underway, it’s unclear whether an agreement will be reached. However, the Trump administration has been working to settle lawsuits brought by the previous administration for some time. It’s clear there is a willingness to do a deal from their side.

Apple is also keen. Bloomberg reports that Apple has already made multiple offers to the Justice Department in 2026 alone. The company previously lost a bid to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit in 2025.

Antitrust litigation

The original lawsuit sought to force Apple to open the iPhone up to new apps and services in a similar way to the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, or DMA. Since its filing, Apple has opened the iPhone up in ways that may appease lawmakers.

Apple was accused of preventing so-called “super apps” from being used on iPhones. These apps have smaller apps or services within them.

Similarly, the DOJ argued that Apple degraded the instant messaging experience of iPhone owners by forcing them to use iMessage. Another point the DOJ raised revolved around the way Apple doesn’t allow the Apple Watch to work with non-Apple devices.

Apple has already addressed some of the points raised by the filing, but not all. There are super apps in the App Store today, for example, and RCS support is now available in the Messages app.

These points may help Apple and the DOJ strike a deal while potentially allowing the DOJ to save face at the same time.

But that’s just part of the story. As ever, there’s a lot more going on here, including some points Apple has refused to address. The iPhone remains much more closed off in the United States than it is in other parts of the world as a result.

Apple versus the US Department of Justice: the story so far

After years of speculation and rumors, an official announcement from the Department of Justice on March 21, 2024 confirmed that it was suing Apple on antitrust grounds. The United States versus Apple lawsuit addresses multiple issues, spanning nearly every aspect of how Apple runs its business.

The Department of Justice says that Apple has violated Section Two of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in five ways.

• Restrictions on the App Store applied to “super apps,” and in doing so, limited the growth of apps for third parties
• Cloud streaming services are limited by Apple, specifically game-streaming services
• Excluding cross-platform messaging apps, forcing people to continue to buy iPhones to maintain messaging
• Diminishing the functionality of non-Apple smartwatches by limiting access to software and hardware features
• Limiting digital wallets and preventing the use of near-field communications to third parties

In a press conference about the event, then-US Attorney General Merrick Garland complained about 30% fees on the App Store, degraded experience for third-party accessories, and leaned heavily on Messages as part of the suit. At the time, it wasn’t clear that the DOJ understood that RCS was coming to Messages, comprehended the limitations of the SMS standard that Messages utilizes to connect with devices that are not iPhones, or knew that the fee structure on the App Store was not a full 30% across the board — and is free for small developers.

According to Apple, the DOJ has brought an antitrust case as a Section 2 Sherman Act claim, and that this can only “move past the pleadings” if it is shown that three specific allegations are valid. The DOJ, says Apple, has to show that the company has:

• Monopoly power in a relevant market
• Has performed anticompetitive conduct
• It has had anticompetitive effects

A year later, Apple responded to the suit, addressing every paragraph. Many of the paragraphs are what Apple calls legal conclusions that don’t need a response. All allegations made against Apple were denied.

The point Apple repeatedly made is that its platform and ecosystem of apps and hardware are designed to ensure the perfect balance between consumer needs, privacy, and security. Apple says the lawsuit “seeks to attack a random collection of Apple’s design choices, degrade the privacy and security benefits of iPhone that customers value, and eliminate the competitive differentiation and consumer choice that currently exist in the marketplace.”

Apple’s nine main defenses also take a strong stance. The filing on July 29. 2025 argues that Apple has legitimate business justifications, protected intellectual property rights, the courts have a lack of standing, no proof of injury, find the arguments moot, that the plaintiffs have no entitlement to relief, that there’s no harm to competition or consumers, and cites the doctrine of laches (the claim was made with unreasonable delay).

The original filing by the DOJ suggested Apple prevented “super apps” from forming, didn’t allow game streaming services, didn’t allow cross-platform messaging apps, purposefully reduced competing smartwatch functionality, and limited digital wallets.

Game streaming is already possible on iPhone and iPad

The “super app” argument has been heard a few times before. It essentially boils down to Apple not allowing apps to become their own kind of operating system with internal app stores, banking, chat features, and more baked into one app.

A separate antitrust lawsuit was filed by a company named Proton over super apps. It suggests that Apple allowing WeChat to exist in China should mean they can exist elsewhere too.

Smartwatch compatibility

There have been complaints from third-party smartwatch makers about integrations. Pebble returned and is compatible with iPhone, but the maker has complained about how it can’t compete with the options offered by Apple Watch.

The DOJ could seek to force Apple to offer more options and APIs. There’s no clear way to do this without Apple having to invent new systems from scratch since it won’t be offering its apps on third-party stores.

Apple Wallet and NFC

Apple’s NFC reader has new functionality that lets third-party apps take advantage. For example, Square can now accept tap-to-pay from cards and phones when interfacing directly with the iPhone.

However, this likely won’t be enough for the DOJ antitrust lawsuit. It will likely seek to have Apple allow users to select default payment apps instead of locking it to Apple Pay, like in the EU.

It’s going to be a long and brutal case that may take years to shake out, assuming the negotiations don’t go anywhere. Apple continues to push back hard against opening up its platforms to third parties and potential privacy and security violations, so expect things to go as roughly as they have with the EU Digital Markets Act.