The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.

    • ANIMATEK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t think so. EU did push through with reform, the US will join sooner or later.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases – they don’t have the expertise and single-issue cases which don’t present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.

            • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.

              The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.

                • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.

        • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.

        Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      If it was all Blue States, if probably agree, but it does include a few Deep Red States with North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. That makes me cautiously optimistic.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          If was all Blue States, with a Democratic Federal DOJ, it’s quite possible that it’s just political messaging. With a mix of Blue & Red States, it’s still possible it’s messaging or a (rare) common-enemy, but it’s more likely they think something’s actually there, and they don’t want to waste their time playing nice with the “other side”.