Australian court finds Apple, Google guilty of being anticompetitive
157 comments
·August 12, 2025seydor
tossandthrow
The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out antitrust cases the past many years - at a significant harm to a lot of people.
The implied corruption is likely not from these other countries that start making these cases now, but is a persistent feature of US governance.
whyenot
> The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out antitrust cases the past many years
Lina Khan's FTC brought cases again Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Mastercard, and more. They also prevented mergers (consolidations) in a lot of different industries. Could they have accomplished more? Certainly, but they did certainly did display a willingness to bring antitrust cases.
rtpg
It does feel like Lina Khan's FTC was much more willing to play the part in the adversarial system. Don't necessarily agree with every decision but was surprising to see how willing the FTC was to jump into things and make unpopular (to stakeholders at least) decisions
m463
> Could they have accomplished more?
unfortunately a lot of these things are on an election cycle.
AnthonyMouse
One of the main problems in the US is that the US has an extremely broad antitrust statute:
> Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.
> Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, ...
It was passed in the era of robber barons and meant to be a strong hammer against anti-competitive practices. But because it was so broad, the courts kept chipping away at it over time through reinterpretation because by its terms it would prohibit a lot of things the courts didn't really want to get involved in policing, or they just made bad calls in years when the Court's majority wasn't that smart.
Meanwhile monopolists generally have a lot of money to pay expensive lawyers, so they structure their activities to fit within the loopholes the courts have carved out over the years and that makes it hard for an administration to hold them to account even when they have the will to do it.
Hyper-partisanship also makes this worse, because if everyone is convinced the other side is pure evil then they're going to try to undo anything the other party was trying to do without even considering what it is, which isn't compatible with long-term prosecutions that would have to span administrations.
FridayoLeary
The sentiment i picked up from HN is that she was more of an activist leader with a grudge against big corporations and that this clouded her judgement. The cases she bought were insubstantial and fell apart. She's a bad poster child for what the FTC should be.
seydor
i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech
AnthonyMouse
> i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech
I don't like the way this is phrased because it nearly implies that doing this is an advantage to the US population.
"Preventing foreign dominance in tech" is plausibly a legitimate goal. Preventing a foreign tech monopoly is a good thing. But the assumption that this can only be achieved by a domestic one is the fallacy. A domestic monopoly is still a disadvantage compared to a competitive market with a multitude of domestic companies.
Unless you're an authoritarian that wants to leverage the monopoly for the purposes of e.g. censorship. But then you're an enemy whose goal is to harm even the domestic population.
FirmwareBurner
It is. Some members of congress somehow magically end up buying tech stocks right before they go to the moon or selling them right before tariffs hit.
It's as if they have some insider knowledge or something, and also a lot of skin in the game to protect these monopolies.
Yeul
All those Silicon Valley types went to Washington to kiss the ring of the pope.
bl4kers
And give gold idols
parasense
[flagged]
ProofHouse
Precisely. Trump not smart enough to think about these retaliations. Would in some cases make tarrifs neutral
ahmeneeroe-v2
Big Tech isn't exactly Trump's base. Trump collects wins[1] for his base at the expense of his non-supporters. Not sure how this makes Trump "not smart".
1 - Regardless of what you think of tariffs, his base largely considers them wins.
ChocolateGod
You're also about to see a lot of the 'Brussels effect' due to the EUs DMA.
sircastor
I think what might happen is all these other markets are going to end up “playing fair” while the US remains an abused ecosystem- because it’ll be the only place left Apple and Google can push their advantage.
gpm
I strongly doubt that US-Australia trade relationships played any role in the judges decision on this case (and, of course, everything else in this case occurred before Trump was even re-elected). Judges aren't in a role where they are negotiating, or particularly care about, international trade at all. Judges are intentionally separated from the political wing of the state in just about every western democracy.
maximus_01
I agree with this. I think potentially someone may have suggested the federal court sit on the decision until the 10% tariff was confirmed a couple of weeks ago. Mostly because the announcement pre Tariff might have resulted in a long Truth Social post from DT followed by a knee jerk reaction. But I highly doubt it would factor into the decision.
Australia is also in the process of regulating platforms and I'd expect it to end up a little closer to Europe/Japan in the next couple of years anyway. They will watch to see what loopholes Apple/Google exploit and try to deal with that in the regulations upfront.
Important context for anyone not aware is that Australia is one of the few countries that US runs a large trade surplus with.
hopelite
In some ways you are probably right, however do not discount the fact that America’s relative weakness has opened up avenues for this type of action that otherwise would have likely not happened out of internal pressure due to concerns about that relationship, external pressure on the government to scuttle these kinds of efforts, and/or general lack of alternatives to the American market.
Especially with the rise and seeming power of BRICS there is surely a sense that the pressure is a bit off from the USA, America will be unwilling to add on to pressure against Australia that is close to core BRICS, etc.
Do not discount the rising awareness of the real weakness the “American” empire finds itself in suddenly.
xbmcuser
Lol at you believing courts or judges don't follow their countries dictates. Most of the time such cases would be routed to a judge that will do what is asked without making any noise.
xbmcuser
Where I come from, there is no need to route cases. I used to believe in Western justice systems, but as I've grown older, I've come to realize that much of the corruption money from Asia, Africa, and South America is parked in these same Western countries. Many of the corrupt officials who have fled their home countries are now living in these same Western countries, and in many cases, their families have been granted citizenship. The behavior of the ruling elite in Western countries tells me all I need to know about their justice systems. It seems that a large portion of the population has willingly, maybe unknowingly, put on blinders to their own countries' systems and behaviors.
whimsicalism
maybe wherever you are from that’s true, but not really in the developed anglosphere
camdroidw
Judiciary and law enforcement are some of the most corrupt people
2OEH8eoCRo0
I think they would have been won regardless because the US has lacked the balls to enforce their own antitrust laws.
benoau
The DOJ is literally suing Apple for many of the same reasons right now -
mikeyouse
That was the ‘old’ DOJ, Tim Apple was in the Oval Office a few days ago to pay tribute in gold… it got them exemptions from tariffs and I wouldn’t be surprised if the DOJ dropped this case soon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A...
whimsicalism
Compared to Europe, the US has significantly more neutral enforcement of laws for domestic prize jewels. The EU, by contrast, barely enforces its own provisions (such as anti-bribery law) against shining European stars.
drdec
As a US citizen I am curious to hear examples of the EU holding back enforcement. That's not the sort of thing that would get reported here.
realusername
I don't know how you got to that conclusion, every single court case against a US giant is waived in the US.
See Boeing which got pardoned recently as another example.
While not perfect, the justice system seems usually more neutral in most EU countries.
draw_down
[dead]
TheRealPomax
looks at all the cases that never happened even well before Trump got elected
You should probably be thinking that the only places they can be won is outside the US.
tiahura
The administration has indicated that the EU shakedown efforts are going to be addressed. It's reasonable to assume that EU crown jewels like LVMH are going to be subject to a reciprocal shakedown.
gausswho
Shakedown is their propaganda. What it actually is is proper market stewardship. The US now threatens other sovereignties to drop to its dysfunctional levels just so its own corporate zombies can continue trawling the world.
seydor
The administration has a particular affinity for luxuries and shiny objects. I dont think that's going to happen
stego-tech
> “Well son, I think I speak for your mother and I when I say, UH DUHHHHHHH.”
Man, it just doesn’t work outside GIF form, but the point is the same. Anyone with two brain cells could understand how vertical monopolies are still monopolies, and the walled gardens created by Big Tech are just company towns customers pay into and can’t leave without enormous disruption. All of that came through rubber-stamped M&As that depleted the market of competition and, now that ZIRP is over and AI is riding high, depleted the market of well-paying jobs in the process.
Competition is efficient, in that it creates more jobs and more opportunities for money to flow between customers and businesses. When your goal is to have all the money, though, competition is bad and must be destroyed.
At least with tech we can force change through code instead of armed law enforcement like monopolies of old.
carlosjobim
They're not monopolies, they're acting anti-competitive. Which is worse. But words have real meanings, and should be used correctly.
hug
Apple has a monopoly on distributing apps to iPhones. That is a true statement, using the real meaning of monopoly, and is being used correctly.
You can disagree with whether or not that statement is a "real issue", in that you can buy a completely different phone and install apps provided by other vendors, but it doesn't take away any truthiness from the initial statement.
From my perspective, though, that monopoly is a real issue. Some 55% of the adult US population own an iPhone. A monopoly in a market made up of the majority of the US populace should be thoroughly examined.
dijit
I really don’t get why people are so bent out of shape about iPhones being a closed ecosystem.
But I am a game developer and console app distribution requires laborious requirements to ship anything meaningful, it’s just an ordinary part of playing the game.
Ironically: all our games end up being better* optimised for all platforms because of the requirements and accessibility is not an afterthought. But hell, is it arbitrary sometimes to get a cert pass and it is definitely frustrating.
carlosjobim
Then I'd like you to give me an example of any company which is not a monopoly, with that same logic.
gpm
It looks like the judgement should be published here within 48 hours: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fc...
Per: https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1236/2020/act...
nwbort
This is unlikely for this particular case - lots of confidentiality claims etc. It's possible that the judgment will never be published.
9dev
It warms my heart to think about how much Thiel must hate to read this.
bootsmann
Well there are still quite some og tech monopolies left, but it does seem like the tide is starting to turn.
null
null
BrenBarn
And what will the punishment be? When the penalty for such practices is just that you have to stop, there's no reason for anyone to not do them as much as they can get away with. The penalties must be so ruinous that companies dare not engage in such behavior in the first place.
devinprater
Good. Maybe if everywhere else makes them do things right, they'll just give up and not region-lock the good stuff. Apple.
supermatt
Region locking isn’t going to stop anything. The cat is already out of the bag.
They don’t need to provide that service, but now it is evident that they are deliberately restricting their users choice to have that feature - and so they will need to permit a feature equivalent service from other vendors.
That is how it will play out. These walled gardens are being knocked down. They will just kick and scream as much as they can while it happens, harassing their users in the process. I just hope the fines get to their maximum as soon as possible - at least then we will be compensated for their childish behaviour.
burnte
Probably not. Large corps are willing to bear the costs of maintaining a lot of control over customers just to keep them from being exposed to a competitor. If they ever open it up, it'll be due to laws, not change of heart on Apple's part.
quitit
This is a consequence of publicly listed companies.
They can't just go and eliminate a giant revenue stream because it would be morally right to do so. They need a court or a law to force them to do it, otherwise the board will be removed from their position for people who will maintain that revenue stream.
conductr
Not just that, the demand for growth and improving quarter over quarter results require they continue to expand those revenue streams. Enshittification is a result of inertia.
jlarocco
The benefits out weight the costs, or at least the people in charge perceive it that way.
null
cubefox
> Epic may have lost its antitrust battle against Apple in the U.S., but it won its lawsuit against Google, which was found to have built an illegal monopoly in the Android market.
Amazing. You can install third-party app stores on Android, just not via Google's own Play Store. Meanwhile, in iOS you can't even install third party browsers. Let alone third-party app stores. Or any apps outside Apple's App Store.
The iOS case is far more egregious. It seems the US courts are heavily biased in favor of Apple.
Workaccount2
The craziest part of this is:
Apple wasn't a monopoly because they didn't share their platform with anyone
The judge in the Google case said that Android couldn't be compared to iOS because iOS is only available to Apple products.
So while I can kind of squint and see this, the obvious signal the court is sending is
"If you don't want to be monopolistic, don't open your platform to anyone".
anakaine
Do remember, however, that the judge is viewing this purely through a legal lens. That interpretation is probably quite an easy one to get to where if you have built a product and never allowed a competitors product in, and nor have you taken over someone else's by using unfair business practices then you're not a monopoly given the legal definition, not the dictionary definition.
From the point of defence of the dictionary definition, Android is huge in Australia, and outside the US generally.
mathiaspoint
Sure. If you claim something is open source and then make it impractical to use without closed source components you should get in trouble for that.
amelius
Huh, third party developers are what made iOS big ...
Workaccount2
Hardware platform.
Which is even stranger because Samsung, by far the largest Android phone distributor, ships their phones with the galaxy app store on them.
null
sieabahlpark
[dead]
bsimpson
From what I recall reading, it was a matter of market definition. They defined the Android app market to be all devices that run Android, and then said Google monopolized it; whereas the iOS market is just devices made by Apple.
I don't agree with the outcome, but that's the twist of logic that allows the more open ecosystem to be the one being attacked as a monopoly.
bootsmann
People complain about it here often, but the EU setting clear rules in the DMA is probably a significantly better way to ensure a level playing field instead of relying on judges and agencies to figure it out. Apple winning the case while Google lost theirs seems increasingly arbitrary.
GeekyBear
Walled gardens are not illegal under existing law. You have to change the law before walled gardens become illegal, as the EU did with the DSA.
Nintendo's various platforms, Microsoft's XBox, and Sony's PlayStation have been perfectly legal walled gardens for decades.
However, claiming to introduce an open platform and then using anticompetitive means to retain control of that "open" platform is plainly illegal under existing law, as Google found with Android and Microsoft found with Windows.
cubefox
First of all, I don't think Google ever made such a "claim". Moreover, what you are suggesting is that it is okay to do something bad if you say it's bad, but not to do something slightly bad if you say it's good. That's absurd. What Apple is doing with iOS is objectively much worse than what Google is doing with Android, irrespective of any alleged "claims".
GeekyBear
> First of all, I don't think Google ever made such a "claim".
They explicitly made the claim that Android was open on many occasions.
Remember when a major Android selling point was that Android was "open source" before they started moving all the updated versions of the developer APIs into the Play Store?
https://medium.com/@coopossum/how-open-source-is-android-8d1...
theshackleford
> What Apple is doing with iOS is objectively much worse than what Google is doing with Android, irrespective of any alleged "claims".
It’s objectively not despite what you claim.
Apple never promised you an alternative, you got exactly what you paid for. Google promised you an alternative and while you weren’t looking tried to strangle it in its crib.
You need to look past your fan bias.
benoau
US courts haven't really begun dismantling this status quo, but there's quite a few things going on that challenge it:
- DOJ antitrust case going to trial soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)
- 2021 Epic injunction that Apple defied followed by 2025 Epic injunction that recently forced Apple to allow links to competing payment options: https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/apple_epic_lies_possi...
- Open Markets Act from 2020 has some new life: https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/06/25/bipartisan-open-a...
- App Store Freedom Act from 2025: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209...
- 2011 class action on excessive fees going to trial next year: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178894/in-re-apple-iph...
- 2025 class action on excessive fees: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70356851/korean-publish...
- 2025 class action for monopolizing app distribution: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvlagedmpb/...
- 2025 class action for doing a shit job of monopolizing app distribution: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70526762/shin-v-apple-i...
ggreer
Apple is what, less than 20% of phone sales? So it's hard to see how that constitutes a monopoly. And if banning 3rd party apps is enough for a lawsuit, then why doesn't that apply to Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for their game consoles? Why doesn't it apply to Amazon's Fire tablets, or Kindles, or Huawei phones, or Oculus headsets? All of those devices have similar restrictions.
Unless customers are coerced or misled, or returns/refunds are difficult, I don't see the need for government intervention. Apple's software restrictions hurt the iPhone's market share. The same goes for charging high fees for app purchases. Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other devices for being less restrictive about what software can be run on them. If an informed adult chooses a locked down platform because they prioritize other features, why should the government stop them?
I can see an argument for requiring labeling (similar to warnings on cigarettes), but a total ban seems like overreach.
SomeHacker44
I did some... Googling.... Anyway, it seems many sites estimate iOS as about 57% of the US market, not 20%.
ggreer
Since the article is about an Australian court case and comments discussed the US & EU, I was using figures for the whole world, which seems to be 16-18% depending on the source.[1][2] Even if we restrict numbers to the US, 57% is rarely considered monopoly. You'd need significant barriers to entry, and the smartphone market has enough manufacturers that it would be hard to argue that such a barrier exists.
1. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insight/post-insight-re...
realusername
> Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other devices for being less restrictive about what software can be run on them
Well no, there's only two operating system with very similar policies and pricing. If there's any competition there, it's not obvious where.
The only pricing change ever made was made as a reaction of an antitrust lawsuit... Just that fact alone should be enough to raise some eyebrows.
ggreer
Similar policies and pricing? You can get Android phones for much cheaper than iPhones. And many smartphone manufacturers let you run whatever you want on their devices. The largest smartphone manufacturer in the world (Samsung) ships most of their phones with two app stores, and lets customers enable side loading with a few taps.
If you're talking about policies and pricing for developers, then why not apply that argument to app stores owned by Sony, Microsoft, & Nintendo? Those are much more restrictive than anything in the smartphone world. Heck, even Steam takes a 30% cut.
ZekeSulastin
Wasn’t the legal difference that Apple never said you could whereas Google did then added roadblocks?
immibis
AFAIK it was on the basis that Google pretends to be an open ecosystem, while Apple is pretty upfront about the fact they control everything you do with your device.
kevingadd
> In a judgment that spanned 2000 pages, Australian Federal Court Justice Jonathan Beach, ruled that Apple had a substantial degree of market power. The Judge said both Apple and Google had breached Section 46 of Australia’s Competition Act. The companies had abused their market power to stifle the competition. But, it wasn't all in favor of Epic Games. Beach rejected the claim that Apple and Google had breached consumer law, he also said that the companies had not engaged in unconscionable conduct.
2000 pages! I can see why the case took something like 5 years.
It sounds like a mixed ruling so Epic didn't get everything they wanted here, but if they're able to launch the Epic Games Store on iOS in Australia that's a pretty big win by itself.
lucianbr
While courts take years and write multiple volumes to justify any kind of measure at all, the corporations move fast and keep changing the way they extract value from society.
I'm not sure the system will ever catch up this way.
Plus, if a regular citizen without deep pockets breaks the law, somehow it never takes years and thousands of pages to convict them. I can easily believe it's not about the complexities of the case, but the depth of the pockets.
If it really was "just a complex situation", you would expect equal percentages of simple and complicated cases for regular joes and huge corporations, no?
joshuacc
> If it really was "just a complex situation", you would expect equal percentages of simple and complicated cases for regular joes and huge corporations, no?
Obviously not. Regular joes almost always have relatively simple situations relative to multinational corporations, otherwise they wouldn't be regular joes.
abtinf
The more irrational the law, the more words must be said about it.
Same for religious philosophies.
IIAOPSW
If length of ones writing is a measure of irrationality, everyone who's ever written a thesis must be absolutely unhinged.
add-sub-mul-div
They might be the first to agree with you.
bigyabai
Not really? The court likes having as much salient evidence as it can get.
null
jmyeet
Amazon already handles purchases on iOS and Android via their own payments infrastructure for physical good. Apple and Google carve out a weird exception for "digital" goods so you can't, for example, buy Kindle books directly on an app. You get directed to a website.
There is absolutely no reason sufficiently large companies can't handle their own payment infrastructure. You should be able to subscribe to Netflix, Hulu or Disney+ without paying the Apple Tax.
A 30% cut is somewhat defensible for small companies that have no payments infrastructure or simply don't want to manage that. There are all sorts of compliance issues. There's something to be said for a seamless user experience.
But 30% for a large company becomes a huge incentive for large companies to attack you in the courts (as Epic did or prodding Attorneys-General to file suit) or by lobbying governments.
I've consistently said that courts and/or governments will end up dismantling the app store monopolies because of the payment monopoly and it'll be far, far better for Apple and Google in the long term if that happens on their terms, not the terms set by courts and governments.
Qualify certain providers to handle their own payments and take 0-5% to pay for things like malware scanning, distribution, etc and you've addressed the strongest monopoly argument (ie payments) and reduced the financial incentive for competitors to attack you.
Attacking you could even risk your qualified payments partner status and you could lose that privileged position. It's such an easy win.
andrekandre
> There is absolutely no reason sufficiently large companies can't handle their own payment infrastructure. You should be able to subscribe to Netflix, Hulu or Disney+ without paying the Apple Tax.
Imustaskforhelp
ah yes australia court finds that every 60 seconds, a minute passes! How amazing! /satire of course
I can't help thinking that a lot of anticompetitive cases will be won outside the US now that the US is in all-out trade war with the rest of the universe.