The showdown between the United States Department of Justice and Apple has reached a critical juncture. In the past week, Apple filed its official, point-by-point response to the government’s high-stakes antitrust lawsuit, kicking the legal battle into its next phase with both sides digging in for a fight that could reshape the tech industry.

The Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Merrick Garland, joined by attorneys general from twenty states, accuses Apple of illegally monopolizing the smartphone market by blocking competition and locking consumers into its devices and services. The government’s case zeroes in on five main areas: super apps, cloud streaming games, third-party messaging apps, smartwatch compatibility, and digital wallets, charging that Apple’s restrictions in each area hurt competition and limit consumer choice.

Apple’s filing, delivered earlier this week, pulls no punches. The company says the Department of Justice’s claims “fundamentally misunderstand” how the iPhone ecosystem operates and insists it supports features like super apps and cloud gaming. Apple says the real danger comes not from its competitive practices, but from government overreach. According to Apple’s legal team, if the case were to succeed, it would let Washington dictate the design of consumer technology, which Apple argues would erode consumer choice and stifle innovation.

In its lengthy rebuttal, Apple methodically disputes every allegation, claiming it does not block multipurpose apps, that game streaming is allowed both on the web and through the App Store, and that messaging and smartwatch apps from outside developers are widely available and fully functional. The company also argues that its tight control over features like tap-to-pay and payment wallets is grounded in protecting user security and privacy.

The courts have already dealt Apple an early setback. On June thirtieth, District Judge Julien Neals rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case, agreeing with the Department of Justice that there is a plausible argument for Apple holding monopoly power in the “performance smartphone” segment—a more narrowly defined, high-end market. The judge also rejected Apple’s argument that the Department of Justice misdefined the relevant market, ruling that differences in pricing, consumer behavior, and US-specific regulations made the government’s definition valid.

With its filing now on the record, the case moves to the discovery phase. Both sides will gather evidence, take depositions, and prepare for what legal experts expect to be a long, drawn-out trial—possibly lasting years. Apple’s response notes that the digital marketplace is already evolving, citing recent rule changes, some voluntary and others forced by Apple’s loss to Epic Games, which allow developers to point users toward external payment options. Apple hopes changes like these will weaken the Department of Justice’s core arguments by the time the case goes to trial.

If the Department of Justice prevails, the consequences for Apple could be sweeping. Analysts say the company could be forced to open up iPhone hardware to competitors, rewrite app store rules, and allow more payment choices, shaking up its famously tight “walled garden.” The knock-on effects would ripple across the tech industry, possibly forcing similar changes at other platform giants.

Apple faces additional antitrust headaches connected to its business arrangements with Google. Depending on how another pending antitrust judgment plays out, Apple could lose as much as twelve point five billion dollars per year in revenue from its lucrative search engine partnership with Google, adding financial stakes to its mounting legal risks.

For now, both Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook and Attorney General Garland have remained largely silent regarding the day-to-day developments, relying on their...