In the last week, the legal battle between the United States Department of Justice and Apple has seen rapid developments, keeping Silicon Valley, Washington, and the global tech sector on edge. The most significant update is that Apple suffered a setback as its bid to dismiss a major antitrust lawsuit was rejected by a federal court, allowing the Department of Justice and a coalition of twenty state attorneys general to press forward with their case.

This lawsuit, originally filed in March of this year, accuses Apple of engaging in a broad range of anticompetitive strategies that allegedly harm consumers and competitors. The Department of Justice claims Apple has systematically blocked apps that could make it easier for iPhone users to switch platforms, suppressed mobile cloud gaming and streaming services, restricted third-party digital wallets, diminished the usability of non-Apple smartwatches, and excluded rival messaging apps. What ties all of these threads together is the Justice Department’s argument that Apple’s conduct is not simply aggressive competition, but a pattern of maintaining and extending its monopoly by hampering consumer choice and locking people into its ecosystem.

Leading the charge for the Department of Justice is Gail Slater, recently appointed head of the antitrust division. Slater is known in both Washington and business circles for a pragmatic but tough approach, handling multiple high-profile tech industry lawsuits simultaneously. Although she enjoys support from senior administration officials, there has been internal debate about her strategies, especially regarding how assertively to challenge major companies like Apple and how her efforts align with the Trump administration’s priorities. However, DOJ leadership, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, has so far stood behind Slater’s direction and has overridden internal dissent in at least one recent merger case. Slater’s insistence that companies communicate directly with the DOJ rather than through high-powered lobbyists has also ruffled feathers in corporate America.

Apple, meanwhile, is defending itself vigorously, arguing that it has not engaged in unlawful monopolization and that many of its decisions—such as limiting certain app functionalities or integrating its own payment technology—are about user security and experience, not about crushing competitors. Apple’s leadership, including CEO Tim Cook, has not issued public statements in the last week specific to this case, but the company has made clear through court filings that it sees the DOJ’s arguments as speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The DOJ’s victory in advancing this case is a major blow for Apple, who hoped to have the entire suit thrown out in its early stages. While Apple and its legal team will be preparing for a drawn-out legal fight, today’s reality is that the company will remain under intense legal scrutiny for the foreseeable future.

On the other legal front, Apple did notch a win: a separate merchant-led antitrust complaint tied to “swipe fees” and payment network dominance—for now—was dismissed by a federal court. The merchant plaintiffs, backed by Mirage Wine & Spirits, accused Apple, Visa, and Mastercard of colluding to keep payment transaction fees high and claimed Apple was paid handsomely not to compete as a payment network itself. The judge found these allegations largely circumstantial and insufficient to proceed under antitrust law, but left a door open for the suit to be amended and refiled within thirty days. So that threat to Apple’s payments business remains dormant, if not entirely dead.

Looking ahead, the DOJ’s antitrust case carries big implications not just for Apple, but for the entire technology sector and digital economy. Legal experts and industry observers say a government victory could force Apple to open up its platform in ways that would transform how software,...