Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States, et al. v. Apple Inc. is a lawsuit brought against multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. in 2024. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Apple violated antitrust statutes. [1] [2] The lawsuit contrasts the practices of Apple with those of Microsoft in United States v. Microsoft Corp., and alleges that ...
United States v. Apple is an antitrust lawsuit by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2024. [1] [2] The lawsuit contrasts the practices of Apple with those of Microsoft in United States v. Microsoft Corp., and alleges that Apple engages in similar tactics and committing even more egregious violations. [3] This followed Epic Games v.
Apple, an antitrust case in which the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Apple violated the Sherman Act in conspiring to raise the price of e-books; United States v. Apple (2016), the Federal Bureau of Investigation's attempt to force Apple to unlock a cryptographically protected iPhone used by one of ...
The subtext here is United States v. AT&T, the 1982 case that led to the break up of the telecom company. The DOJ was able to secure an antitrust judgment against AT&T in that instance, but it ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Apple said on Tuesday it plans to ask a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and 15 states in March that alleged the iPhone maker monopolized the ...
The four states are Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington, the Justice Department said. The lawsuit alleges that Apple uses its market power to get more money from consumers, developers ...
Creative, a Singapore-based consumer electronics group, also filed a trade complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against Apple. [208] [209] Creative asked for a court injunction to block the import and sale of Apple's iPod and iPod nano in the United States and for money damages for past sales. Apple filed a ...
"Apple Inc. terminated Parrish's employment based upon false and pretextual reasons and in fact terminated her employment in (an) attempt to nip-in-the-bud the successful organizing campaign that ...