The Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Apple saw notable maneuvers this week as tension continues to mount between the government and one of Big Tech’s most formidable players. Federal prosecutors and Apple’s lawyers are locked in a tight contest over how Apple’s App Store rules, developer contracts, and platform policies shape competition and user experience.

At the center of the Department of Justice’s campaign is Jonathan Kanter, who serves as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. Under Kanter’s leadership, the government has moved more aggressively against tech giants, with Apple now one of the highest-profile targets in the ongoing antitrust push. Kanter is widely seen as a champion of tougher enforcement on Silicon Valley’s gatekeepers and regularly cited in news for his vocal stance on reining in what he describes as monopolistic behavior.

On the Apple side, Chief Executive Tim Cook has remained a lightning rod for scrutiny but also maintains Apple’s public defense: that the company’s ecosystem delivers security and reliability for users while enabling developer innovation. In the most recent legal developments, a judge denied requests to depose Cook and his Google counterpart in an associated case, signaling that despite public interest, courts are not opening every door for adversarial discovery at this stage.

Recent hearing transcripts and filings indicate that Apple has notched a procedural win by keeping its top executive out of the deposition hot seat for now, limiting government lawyers’ ability to press Cook on key details personally. However, antitrust experts say this is a narrow victory that does little to shift the core legal battle, which remains focused on whether Apple’s conduct stifles competition by locking developers and consumers too tightly into its platforms.

The Department of Justice’s legal team has pushed back, aiming to extend discovery to internal Apple communications and high-level decision making. They argue that Apple has used its control over app distribution, default search placement, and contractual restrictions to undercut rivals and box out alternative payment systems—a contention that, if proven, could dramatically reshape Apple’s lucrative business around the App Store and device ecosystem.

On the industry front, the case is being closely watched not just by tech companies, but by consumer advocacy groups and market analysts. Any government win could set a precedent for more stringent antitrust oversight and potentially force Apple to loosen some of its most tightly held business practices. That said, courts have tread carefully in the past, wary of imposing remedies that could disrupt services millions rely on daily.

There is broad speculation that the outcome of this case will resonate well beyond Apple. A government victory could lead to new rules for how digital markets are structured and drive changes for players like Google and Amazon. For Apple, a defeat could mean far-reaching restructuring in how it runs its App Store, allows payments, or contracts with developers. For the Department of Justice and Jonathan Kanter, a win would be a high-water mark in the modern push for tech antitrust—while a loss would send the Biden and Trump era regulatory campaigns back to the drawing board.

At this point, neither side can claim a clear, substantive victory or loss in the case. The most significant recent development remains the refusal from the judge to order depositions of top executives, a mild procedural win for Apple. Broader industry impact remains theoretical until more concrete rulings or settlements emerge, and experts say watchers should expect further arguments over evidence, witnesses, and ground rules before any major shakeups. For now, it is a case of high-powered standoffs and careful legal maneuvering, with the next moves likely to determine the future shape of...