This year, the Department of Justice is hell-bent on blocking big tech under the false promise of “trust busting.” The agency’s efforts will only stifle innovation and limit the options for consumers within the technology industry.
In January 2024, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google over its perceived dominance in online advertising technology. The agency draws analogies to United States v. Microsoft (2001), in which they prosecuted Microsoft’s monopoly on internet browsers. It’s of no consequence to the DOJ that Google’s advertising services, by design, promote competition. All Attorney General Merrick Garland cares about is the company’s size and influence on the tech industry. So far, one court has agreed with him.
Unfortunately, the agency hasn’t stopped with Google. In March, the DOJ also filed a suit against Apple complaining that it blocks the development of “super” apps, restricts outside digital wallet apps, and bars streaming services. At least in their Google suit, the DOJ has some historical precedence and specific remedies to ground their case. The Apple suit cites little legal history, and the DOJ has no specific remedies. The agency’s complaints are vague and lack focused solutions.
Apple is no stranger to scrutiny by the Justice Department. Their most recent tussle with the DOJ is its third in fourteen years—the first was over e-book prices, the second regarding collusion. While past litigation did not change Apple’s policies much, the company continued to skyrocket in popularity. Now, the DOJ needs a reason to go after its increased market share.
As of July 2024, 56% of smartphones purchased were Apple products. The DOJ argues that this “monopoly” permits Apple to “extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators” and other clients. However, Apple did not gain its status from predatory business practices and poaching competition. It became a juggernaut because of the inherent perks of free enterprise: design excellence, marketing campaigns, and diverse services.
The DOJ relies on overly narrow market definitions in its antitrust cases, which do not accurately reflect the competitive landscape. Apple’s first products balanced high function and pleasing aesthetics, opening up new avenues like mobile computing, headphones, and smartwatches that boosted revenue. Apple became an industry leader due to the superior quality of its offerings, brand loyalty, and business model. Complying with the DOJ would slowly drain the corporation’s resources, interfere with its introduction of new items, and harm customer demand for its products.
It seems that Apple’s success is too much for the DOJ to handle—and the agency is trying to break up the party.
The DOJ has not enforced Section 2 of the Sherman Act since 1982, when they separated Bell System. If they succeed in doing so now, it would crater the greater tech sector. Some analysts worry that significantly constricting big tech companies could reduce service integration, increase costs, and benefit foreign competitors like Alibaba. All these developments would weaken consumer choice and set a terrible legal precedent for how far legislators can interfere in industry development.
Competition experts are skeptical the DOJ will succeed against Apple, but the political benefits of launching this crusade are simply too tempting for progressives to resist.
Public opinion of the DOJ has tanked in recent years, and citizens are frustrated with its slowness and weaponized politics. It’s likely that the DOJ seeks to redeem itself as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren did in 2019 and 2020 when she ran a presidential campaign on the decree that Google and Apple have too much power to be forces of good. These gripes resonated with a Democrat-led House committee in 2022, approving bills that would undermine Apple and Google’s service models. Perhaps Apple and Google are the latest entities subject to the DOJ’s “redemption arc,” proving that it can act in the people’s—or at least progressives’—best interest.
Whatever reasons Garland has for going after Apple and Google—power, competition, or privacy—are tied up in ideological bias. In its quest to dismantle big tech, the DOJ only digs itself deeper as a partisan body. Political priorities come first, and justice is an afterthought. Promoting innovation isn’t even a consideration.
While seeing our government do something might be refreshing, the DOJ is guided by the wrong principles. We can see that in its uneven arguments against Apple and Google.
The DOJ needs to ditch social activism and return to a correct standard for antitrust violations. Instead of technical misunderstandings, outdated arguments, or performative regulations, the DOJ should embrace the marketplace of ideas and the transformative power of technology. With its current approach, the DOJ must reprioritize business, technology, and justice.
