The United States takes a stand against Apple's illegal monopolistic practices with the iPhone (full details here)

(By Taylor) The United States continues its crusade against tech giants. Utilizing at times the Department of Justice and at others, the Federal Communications Commission (FTC), the Joe Biden administration has launched an offensive against what it deems illegal monopolistic practices by companies such as Alphabet (Google), Amazon, and Microsoft. The latest chapter is a significant lawsuit announced this Thursday by Attorney General Merrick Garland against Apple for maintaining a closed ecosystem around its flagship product, the iPhone. Prosecutors have likened the lawsuit to other major antitrust cases in history, such as those filed against AT&T and Microsoft. Apple's stocks fell by 4.09% on Thursday. For a company valued at nearly $2.7 trillion, that's a bite of over $100 billion.

The new lawsuit, spanning 88 pages, has been filed by the Department of Justice and the attorneys general of 16 states in a federal court in New Jersey. In it, they accuse the tech giant of violating antitrust laws by blocking its rivals' access to the hardware and software features of its smartphone, thereby hindering their ability to offer alternative products and services to those of Apple itself.

"Apple has maintained a monopoly power in the smartphone market, not simply by outperforming competitors on merit, but by violating federal antitrust law. Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies break the law," Garland said in a press conference alongside his team of prosecutors. "If left unchecked, Apple will continue to reinforce its smartphone monopoly," the attorney general added. Apple holds a 70% share in the U.S. market for high-performance smartphones. "Apple has maintained its power, not through superiority, but through illegal exclusionary behavior," Garland argues.

The lawsuit not only affects Apple's lucrative services business but also strikes at the heart of its business model, where users are part of a network in which they are somewhat trapped and dependent on what the company offers. If successful, it could imply not only fines and economic compensations but also changes of great significance in the way it operates.

Apple believes the action is misguided "from both factual and legal standpoints." "This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple, where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering the government to forcefully intervene in people's technology design," the company said in a statement.

"Apple has employed a strategy based on exclusionary anticompetitive behavior that harms both consumers and developers," Garland continued. "For consumers, this has meant fewer options, higher prices and fees, lower quality smartphones, apps, and accessories, and less innovation from both Apple and its competitors. For developers, it has meant being forced to play by rules that isolate Apple from competition, and, as stated in our lawsuit, we allege that Apple has consolidated its monopoly power not by improving its own products, but by worsening others'," he said.

According to the Department of Justice, Apple carries out its exclusionary anticompetitive conduct in various ways. Firstly, Apple imposes contractual restrictions and fees that limit the features and functionalities developers can offer to iPhone users. Secondly, Apple selectively restricts access to the connection points between third-party apps and the iPhones' operating system, degrading the functionality of non-Apple apps and accessories. As a result, for most of the past 15 years, Apple has collected what Garland has called "a tax in the form of a 30% commission" on the price of any app downloaded from the App Store. Apple has also suppressed the appearance of programs such as cloud streaming apps, including gaming apps, as well as super apps that could reduce users' dependence on Apple's own operating system and its expensive phones, which, as it has been keen to remind, cost up to $1,600.

The court order required Apple to allow developers to provide links and buttons to direct consumers to alternative payment options. Last week, Epic demanded that Apple be held in contempt, arguing that the new rules and a new 27% fee imposed on developers made the links practically useless.

It's not just Apple...

The Department of Justice filed two lawsuits against Google. One, still under the Trump administration, accused the company of alleged abuse of its dominant position in the search engine market, which has gone to trial and is awaiting judgment. Another was filed by the current attorney general for the company's monopolistic behavior in the digital advertising market and is still pending. The FTC unsuccessfully attempted to stop Microsoft's acquisition of video game firm Activision with another lawsuit. Additionally, last September, it sued Amazon, accusing it of illegally restricting competition and thereby "inflating prices, degrading quality, and robbing consumers and businesses of innovation."

Ole Miss creó el relato perfecto del “Fast Friday” al Fiesta Bowl (por qué Miami es el último capítulo de una revolución)

(Por Ortega) El field goal de 47 yardas de Lucas Carneiro que venció a Georgia no fue un golpe de suerte. Fue la culminación de un proceso diseñado para prosperar en el caos, la validación de una hipótesis arriesgada: que un equipo puede perder a su entrenador estrella un mes antes del playoff, mantener a un staff dividido entre dos programas, y aún así ejecutar bajo presión extrema.

(Tiempo de lectura: 4 minutos para ilusionarse)

Empieza este 2026 haciendo lo que ya los Gurús de las top brands hacen

(Por Otero-Maurizio) "El marketing del futuro no se vende; se vive. Y las marcas que creen espacios para vivir, ganarán." Las tendencias 2026 no son meras predicciones, sino síntomas de una transformación profunda en la psicología del consumidor, la economía de la atención y la arquitectura de valor de las marcas. 

(Contenido de alto valor: 3 minutos)

2026, el primer chisme que hizo estallar las redes: Brady & Earle en St. Barths (¿romance, colaboración de marca o el nuevo power duo del entretenimiento global?)

(Por Vera) En la noche de Año Nuevo, mientras el mundo brindaba por lo nuevo, dos figuras aparentemente distantes —Tom Brady, el atleta meticuloso, y Alix Earle, la influencer de la generación Z— escribían, sin saberlo, un capítulo revelador sobre el futuro del branding, el entretenimiento y la economía de la atención en 2026.

(Nota ágil de 3 minutos, menos de 250 palabras)

El colapso del consumo del alcohol (excepto hiper lujo o meta relevancia) está remodelando todo el marketing de bebidas

(Por Maqueda con Maurizio) Imagine una inversión que pierde casi la mitad de su valor en cinco años. No es una criptomoneda volátil ni una startup fallida. Es la industria global del alcohol, un gigante que durante siglos pareció inmune a las crisis y que hoy enfrenta una tormenta perfecta: una revolución generacional en los hábitos de consumo, guerras comerciales y una transformación farmacológica que está reescribiendo la relación humana con la intoxicación.

(Nota ágil de 3 minutos, menos de 250 palabras)

Rosemary Beach: es como ir a lo mas lindo de Europa y de Miami a la vez (en Florida)

(Por Maurizio) Este pequeño paraíso, ubicado en la pintoresca Costa del Golfo, es un verdadero refugio para aquellos que buscan una escapada idílica, combinando la serenidad de la naturaleza con un estilo de vida moderno y vibrante. En el vasto paisaje de la costa de Florida, se encuentra un rincón de ensueño que no siempre recibe la atención que merece: Rosemary Beach

(Tiempo de lectura estratégica y de alto valor: 4 minutos)

Paradoja Starbucks 2026: reestructura en EEUU y crece en MX (by Alsea) (¿por qué nadie te explica por qué?)

(Por Maqueda y Maurizio) Si quieres entender el futuro del retail, no mires las ganancias. Mira las energías contrastantes. Starbucks no tiene un problema financiero; tiene una crisis ontológica. Mientras en México florece como un ecosistema resiliente, en Estados Unidos se contrae como un organismo que olvidó su propia mitología.

(Tiempo de lectura estratégica y de alto valor: 4 minutos)