Apple has been allowed to use the Hague Convention to compel Samsung’s South Korean parent to share evidence for its US antitrust trial.
Apple’s antitrust trial in the United States is already spilling across borders, with the company now pushing to involve South Korean authorities in obtaining evidence it says is critical to its defense.
In the US case, Apple is accused of suppressing competition by relying on proprietary hardware and software.. The US Department of Justice wants to show that Apple makes it harder for competitors such as Samsung to serve customers effectively. positioning the dispute as much about access and interoperability as it is about market power.
The request centers on data Apple believes it needs from Samsung’s top corporate structure in South Korea.. Neither Samsung nor the DOJ was able to block Apple’s attempt in US courts to obtain information that appears to sit higher in Samsung’s organization than its US headquarters can directly produce.
As the trial moves past the initial evidence-gathering stage, Samsung’s US operations reportedly refused to cooperate with the relevant requests. With that impasse, Apple sought permission to use international legal assistance mechanisms that can compel cross-border compliance.
Apple was approved to use the Hague Convention framework. allowing the court to pull the South Korean government into the process.. A submitted document in the court record indicates the request was granted. and it states that “the court shall execute the submitted Letter of Request For International Judicial Assistance.”
In practical terms. the court’s next step is to transmit a formal request to South Korea asking authorities there to compel Samsung to hand over documents and other relevant materials stored in South Korean systems.. That shift matters because the evidence Apple is pursuing is not described as being held in Samsung America’s databases.
Samsung’s position is that it cannot turn over data located within the South Korean parent company’s systems. because that information sits outside the parts of the business covered by Samsung’s US office.. Samsung had hoped the US court would find the material irrelevant on that basis. arguing the evidence does not belong to the entities it controls in the US.
The DOJ, meanwhile, also argued against the request being granted. It contended that Apple waited too long to file its motion and that the court should deny the cross-border effort on procedural grounds.
Neither side’s argument prevailed in the US court.. The ruling allowed Apple’s request to proceed. in part because it was described as narrow enough to be accepted under the court’s standards for international assistance.. With that approval, the burden shifts to the next legal stage: what South Korea does with the request.
Even if the Hague Convention process is initiated, Apple does not automatically win in Korea.. South Korean authorities could disagree with the scope of the request, potentially narrowing it, or they could deny it altogether.. Samsung could also attempt to resist the demand within South Korea, setting up further legal activity outside the US.
This dispute is also moving slowly by design. The DOJ filed its lawsuit against Apple in March 2024, and early evidence requests were made in October 2025, meaning the fight has been underway for a significant stretch before this particular cross-border step.
Legal experts widely note that antitrust trials can be lengthy, and the timeline here is expected to stretch. The case is described as likely taking much of the next decade to reach a conclusion, with evidence disputes, appeals, and jurisdictional hurdles potentially extending proceedings.
For the broader tech industry. the case highlights how antitrust fights increasingly turn on technical access to data and corporate structure.. When evidence sits with parent companies abroad. companies may need to navigate multiple legal systems just to determine what competitors can demonstrate—or challenge—about market behavior.
It also underscores why enforcement agencies and defendants often disagree not just on the merits. but on how evidence should be collected.. In this case. the central question becomes whether the court can reach into Samsung’s South Korean infrastructure to produce information the DOJ believes supports its theory. while Apple positions it as necessary for its defense.
Apple antitrust Hague Convention Samsung evidence US DOJ international legal assistance competition law