When Innovation Becomes Exclusion: Apple and the Intensification of Global Antitrust Scrutiny
“No matter how powerful, no matter how prominent, no matter how popular – no company is above the law” [1]
Lisa Monaco, U.S. Deputy Attorney General
Introduction
In contemporary digital markets, innovation, fair competition, and consumer welfare are widely regarded as the pillars of Big Tech’s success. However, monopolistic behaviour, which excludes rivals from competition and violates antitrust principles, can result in higher pricing, reduced quality, and diminished consumer choice. Monopoly power is frequently measured under competition law using factors such as market share, price elasticity of demand, and entry barriers.
This article discusses Apple’s anti-competitive behaviour in the digital market in the context of recent antitrust litigation and regulatory interventions. It will examine how Apple has taken advantage of its closed ecosystem, which has attracted sustained antitrust scrutiny in the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, how this reflects a broader shift in global antitrust enforcement in response to the growing market dominance of Big Tech firms, and the wider implications for Big Tech.
Apple’s Anti-Competitive Market Behaviour within a Closed Ecosystem
Is Apple successful because it is providing innovative products desired by consumers, or because it is engaging in practices that may alter competitive dynamics and reduce consumer choice? Apple has long been at the forefront of the technology industry, but increased regulatory scrutiny reveals how the business has stifled market competition and innovation.
With the rapid expansion of its services business in recent years, Apple’s closed ecosystem (also known as a “walled garden”) integrates its hardware products, such as the iPhone, Mac and Apple Watch, and software platforms, including iOS, macOS, and watchOS, to work seamlessly together and create a fluid user experience with high levels of privacy and security. While a closed ecosystem does not inherently indicate monopolistic behaviour, issues arise when such integration is used to disadvantage competitors. Apple’s established dominance within its ecosystem allows for conduct such as self-preferencing and restrictions on third-party access, which regulators have found to be anti-competitive.
Apple as a Case Study in the Global Expansion of Antitrust Regulation
Apple’s ecosystem-based dominance in the technology market has sparked worldwide antitrust scrutiny. Legal and regulatory actions in the US, the EU, and the UK illustrate the growing challenges created by Apple’s market conduct, as well as the wider trend towards stricter regulation of digital market competition. Together, these interventions reflect increasing concern among regulators that the advantages conferred by Apple’s closed ecosystem may be leveraged in ways that suppress competition, prompting the expansion of antitrust enforcement and ex ante regulatory frameworks across various jurisdictions.
The United States of America
The US government regulates monopolies through the enforcement of antitrust laws, namely the Sherman Act (SA) 1890 and the Clayton Act (CA) 1914, which prohibit anti-competitive agreements and practices. In the ongoing civil enforcement action US and Plaintiff States v Apple Inc, brought by the Department of Justice, Apple is accused of violating s2 SA by illegally maintaining a monopoly over the smartphone market by charging high app fees and blocking innovations like “super apps” and cloud gaming to boost profits, thereby suppressing competition. According to the DoJ, such exclusionary conduct creates “iOS stickiness”, whereby ecosystem lock-in and network effects make switching to non-Apple devices costly and difficult. Through this lawsuit, the DoJ seeks equitable relief to dismantle exclusionary practices and restore competitive market conditions [2].
However, Apple contends that consumer preferences for its premium brand, integrated ecosystem, and security-focused design justifies its market position, and so there is no monopoly under s2 SA [3]. It maintains that it has insufficient market power, with less than 30% of the smartphone market globally and just over 60% of the US market. However, the DoJ has defined the market relatively narrowly, centred on high-end smartphones to show Apple’s major market dominance [4]. The DoJ has mounted an antitrust litigation against a national tech-sector leader in the name of consumer protection [5], which Apple argues will have the opposite effect of stifling innovation, such as weakening quality-based competition between Apple and Android platforms [6].
The European Union
Beyond national litigation, antitrust regulation of Apple has grown in the EU. In 2023, the European Commission designated Apple as a “gatekeeper” under the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA), which aims to make European digital markets fairer and more contestable. As a gatekeeper, Apple must adhere to a set of ex ante obligations, which include enhancing transparency and interoperability as well as avoiding self-preferencing. It also levels the playing field for smaller enterprises while promoting user choice and innovation by restricting practices deemed inherently harmful to market contestability.
However, the Commission recently found Apple to be in breach of its anti-steering obligations under the DMA as a gatekeeper, which require Apple to allow developers to inform customers of alternative offers outside the App Store. Apple also imposed restrictions that prevented app developers from fully benefitting from the advantages of alternative distribution channels other than the App Store, which, according to the Commission, undermined the DMA’s objectives of ensuring free and open competition in digital markets. The Commission’s enforcement action has exposed Apple to substantial administrative fees.
As a result of DMA compliance requirements, Apple has been required to modify its app design and distribution practices in the EU. Apple has warned that these changes could result in feature delays, new privacy and security threats, and a less positive user experience. It has also criticised the DMA’s asymmetric regulatory model, claiming that non-designated competitors like Samsung are not subject to the same obligations despite their strong presence in the smartphone market.
The United Kingdom
The UK’s approach increasingly mirrors the EU’s regulatory turn under the DMA, posing increased regulatory and litigation challenges for Apple. In Dr. Rachael Kent v Apple Inc, the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that Apple abused its dominant position in the iOS app distribution services market by charging excessive fees on the App Store for app subscriptions and in-app purchases made by iPhone and iPad users in the UK [7] and imposing a 30% commission for iOS app developers. This decision entitles around 36 million UK consumers, represented by a class action, to approximately £1.5 billion in compensation from Apple over the past decade.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) designated Apple as having “strategic market status” (SMS) under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) 2024 in 2025, which subjects Apple to certain conduct rules, including obligations to enhance user choice and transparency and allowing alternative app stores for developers, in order to ensure mobile platforms remain competitive. The CMA emphasised that such a designation was necessary because Apple’s mobile platforms were strategically significant and required heightened scrutiny to prevent market dominance; however, for Apple, this may significantly curtail platform autonomy and break down the walled aspects of its ecosystem.
The Bigger Picture: What Apple Signals for Big Tech
The intensified regulatory scrutiny of Apple across the US, the EU, and the UK reflects a broader global shift in antitrust governance in response to the unprecedented economic and market power of Big Tech firms. Apple’s cases illustrate growing antitrust concerns that entrenched digital ecosystems may facilitate the abuse of market dominance, foreclose competition, and limit consumer choices. This trend is not isolated, as similar enforcement trajectories are evident in actions against other technology giants including Meta and Alphabet, both of which are designated gatekeepers under the DMA and are facing antitrust lawsuits in the US for suspected monopolistic activity.
However, a surge in antitrust enforcement and ex ante digital regulation increase the dangers of over-regulation. Such measures purport to improve competition and consumer welfare by targeting market dominance, competitiveness, and platform gatekeeping; yet they may at the same time suppress innovation by breaking up ecosystems, increasing compliance costs, and limiting businesses’ ability to differentiate on quality and security. The Apple case study exemplifies this tension. In the US, the DoJ’s litigation signifies a shift in national antitrust policy towards more aggressive enforcement of Big Tech, potentially setting far-reaching precedents for state intervention in digital markets. In the EU, the DMA represents a fundamental expansion of competition legislation beyond traditional effects-based analysis, imposing structural obligations that compel Apple to open its previously closed ecosystem.
These developments raise critical questions of proportionality and necessity. While regulatory intervention may be justified in addressing structural imbalances and maintaining fairness and contestability, overly intrusive or asymmetrical measures may undermine the very innovation and dynamic competition they seek to promote. Apple’s cases underline the central challenge of global antitrust law: striking an appropriate balance between effective control of market power and the preservation of technology innovation incentives in rapidly evolving digital markets.
Conclusion
Apple’s treatment in the US, the EU, and the UK reflects a global trend towards more assertive antitrust oversight of digital markets, as regulators increasingly seek to address concerns surrounding platform dominance, ecosystem lock-in, and gatekeeping power. While litigation and ex ante regulation demonstrate that even the most powerful businesses are subject to competition law, measures aimed at restoring fairness and contestability may constrain innovation and undermine competition if they are disproportionately applied. Apple’s case study highlights the need for competition authorities to strike a balance between curbing detrimental market power and retaining the dynamic innovation that underpins the digital economy.
References
[1][2] Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets (US Department of Justice, 21 March 2024) <https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets> accessed 20 January 2026.
[3][6] Alden Abbott, U.S. V. Apple Lawsuit Could Affect American Competition And Innovation (Forbes, 22 March 2024) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/aldenabbott/2024/03/22/us-v-apple-lawsuit-could-affect-us-competition-and-innovation/> accessed 22 January 2026.
[4][5] Jennifer Huddleston, Is Apple a Monopoly? (CATO Institute, 17 April 2024) <https://www.cato.org/commentary/apple-monopoly> accessed 19 January 2026.
[7] Dr Rachael Kent wins historic case against Apple in £1.5 billion collective action (King’s College London, 24 October 2025) < https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/dr-rachael-kent-wins-historic-case-against-apple-in-1.5-billion-collective-action> accessed 20 January 2026.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Sherman Act 1890
Clayton Act 1914
Digital Markets Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/1925)
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
Competition Act 1998
US and Plaintiff States v Apple Inc (2024) (ongoing)
Dr. Rachael Kent v Apple Inc
Secondary sources
Apple becomes global smartphone market leader (WARC, 17 January 2024) <https://www.warc.com/content/feed/apple-becomes-global-smartphone-market-leader/en-GB/9074> accessed 19 January 2026.
What’s Happening with Apple and Why It Matters (markets all.) <https://marketsall.com/whats-happening-with-apple-and-why-it-matters> accessed 19 January 2026.
Jennifer Huddleston, Is Apple a Monopoly? (CATO Institute, 17 April 2024) <https://www.cato.org/commentary/apple-monopoly> accessed 19 January 2026.
Jilayne Jordan, 6 Reasons Monopolies Are Bad for Consumers and the Economy (camoin associates, 3 September 2025) <https://camoinassociates.com/resources/6-reasons-monopolies-are-bad-for-the-economy/> accessed 20 January 2026.
Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets (US Department of Justice, 21 March 2024) <https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets> accessed 20 January 2026.
Dr Rachael Kent wins historic case against Apple in £1.5 billion collective action (King’s College London, 24 October 2025) < https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/dr-rachael-kent-wins-historic-case-against-apple-in-1.5-billion-collective-action> accessed 20 January 2026.
Class action on App Store succeeds against Apple (Monckton Chambers, 24 October 2025) <https://www.monckton.com/class-action-on-app-store-succeeds-against-apple/> accessed 20 January 2026.
The Digital Markets Act’s impacts on EU users (Apple, 24 September 2025) <https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2025/09/the-digital-markets-acts-impacts-on-eu-users/> accessed 20 January 2026.
Alistair Gray and Tim Bradshaw, Apple loses UK class action lawsuit over ‘excessive’ App Store charges (Financial Times, 23 October 2025) <https://www.ft.com/content/37a5c1e4-4433-4b56-b47f-f80fcd3d52b8> accessed 21 January 2026.
Suzi Ring and Tim Bradshaw, Google and Apple face stricter UK rules on mobile platforms (Financial Times, 22 October 2025) <https://www.ft.com/content/2c19c17a-b184-4e05-95de-2274a7f1ca76> accessed 21 January 2026.
Jim Osman, Big Tech’s Overpowering Influence: Risks To Markets And Your Money (Forbes, 30 June 2024) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimosman/2024/06/30/big-techs-overpowering-influence-risks-to-markets-and-your-money/> accessed 21 January 2026.
Alden Abbott, U.S. V. Apple Lawsuit Could Affect American Competition And Innovation (Forbes, 22 March 2024) <https://www.forbes.com/sites/aldenabbott/2024/03/22/us-v-apple-lawsuit-could-affect-us-competition-and-innovation/> accessed 22 January 2026.
Image Credits
appshunter.io on Unsplash <https://unsplash.com/photos/apple-logo-reflected-on-a-building-window-i-ejA6yWJbo>
