Apple vs US antitrust case stalls over discovery duties

Apple accuses – The DOJ’s Apple antitrust case, filed in June 2024, has moved through appeals only to stall over discovery. Apple says the US government and 14 subpoenaed agencies are trying to dodge document production obligations, while the government argues Apple’s request

For months, the antitrust case against Apple has been stuck in the most unglamorous part of court—document requests. But this time, the fight isn’t just between lawyers. Apple is now accusing the US government of trying to slip out of discovery by keeping the process in perpetual motion.

The United States Department of Justice brought antitrust claims against Apple in June 2024. After a year of appeals, the case was pushed forward. Since then, discovery has become the battleground, and nothing seems ready to give.

In September, the DOJ complained that Apple was refusing document requests. Then, in April, Apple returned the criticism by complaining about Samsung in the same discovery context. A joint filing viewed by AppleInsider adds to the piling finger-pointing—now with Apple claiming the government is the one halting progress.

In the filing. Apple accuses the United States and the 14 agencies being subpoenaed of stopping the case rather than complying with discovery. Apple’s message to the court is blunt: the government. having brought the action. cannot avoid its discovery obligations by sending Apple through an endless procedural maze.

Apple asks the court to order the United States to produce materials Apple says it is entitled to obtain—relevant. narrowly targeted information from a small subset of the United States’ own agencies. Apple characterizes its request as a final compromise proposal, and says the materials sought are attached as Appendix A.

The government’s resistance, Apple argues, can be boiled down to an objection that providing the documents would be too difficult and that the information has little relevance. Apple’s filing pushes back hard on the relevance argument, saying the requests appear relevant.

That’s where the dispute starts to bite. If the US government is suing Apple on antitrust grounds. Apple argues. the way federal agencies view Apple inside the government itself should matter. Apple also points out that government use of iPhones happens for reasons—and those reasons. Apple believes. would contradict the grounds of the antitrust case.

The sequence has become its own kind of tension: one side insists it can’t or won’t produce, the other side insists it’s being stonewalled in a way that prevents the case from moving.

The friction also lands on another front—Apple’s dispute with the core allegations. Apple’s rebuttal against the five claims made by the DOJ goes point by point:

DOJ says Apple stifles the success of “super apps,” despite rules that allow and support such apps—Apple’s position is that a multitude of “super apps” exist on the App Store today.

DOJ says Apple blocks cloud streaming games, even though Apple allows streaming games both over the web and in the App Store where they can stream directly to users.

DOJ says Apple degrades third-party messaging apps, even though those apps are widely available and enormously popular on iPhone already.

DOJ says Apple limits the functionality of third-party smartwatches. Apple counters that third-party watches can effectively pair with iPhone, share data with iPhone through a companion app, and make use of certain Apple-developed capabilities that are expanding over time.

Finally, DOJ says Apple withholds access to iPhone hardware necessary for third-party digital wallets to use tap-to-pay technology. Apple argues it developed and provides a mechanism that protects user data.

Those claims were already contested when they were made by the DOJ in 2024. and Apple’s filing suggests they’re less persuasive now. It also points to a specific change for smartwatches: the smartwatch argument. Apple notes. has shifted with iOS 26.3 thanks to notification forwarding to third-party smartwatches.

The legal fight may be about documents and relevance, but it’s also about momentum. And right now, everyone appears to be dragging their feet through discovery—Apple, Samsung, and the US government included.

Apple’s complaint. as framed in the filing. is that the government cannot keep the process going indefinitely while maintaining that its own agency materials aren’t worth producing. Whether the court agrees will decide whether this case finally accelerates—or whether the discovery standoff becomes the story that defines the antitrust dispute for years.

Apple antitrust case DOJ Apple discovery requests US government agencies subpoenaed iOS 26.3 tap-to-pay digital wallets super apps cloud streaming games third-party messaging apps third-party smartwatches cybersecurity and tech regulation