networks, so we really want now to ask people to help contribute. founder's day is an interesting concept. i think the founders as being the entrepreneurs who started c-span and created the private enterprise of the congress that said is to televise these -- televising the sessions and seven years later the senate saying yes, the reporters who covered us when we were an unknown quantity and were not quite sure what to make of it, but more importantly the viewers who watched over the years, the viewers supporting this network has been critical who call into the, call and shows you host also support us unlimited by using our products, and in many cases they help get us on cable systems over the years when we were seeking to expand our coverage. now we are calling on viewers to help us in a different way with a little bit of support on founders date to help us with a contribution that will sustain c-span into the future. >> so with t opportunities

what can our viewers expect of us in the future? >> well our goal is the mothership is c-span, c-span2, c-span3 providing linear service but we want to be everywhere >> attorney general merrick garland and justice department senior leadership held a news conference on an anti-trust lawsuit against apple. he and the other officials allege the tech company engages in monopolistic and illegal business practices such as degrading the functionality of nonapple apps and thereby hurting consumers and developers. this is just over half an hour. y hurting consumers and y developers. this is just over half an hour.

>> good morning. >> did morning. earlier today the department of justice joined by 15 states and the district of columbia sued apple in the u.s. district court for the district of new jersey for violating section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act. over the last two decades, apple has become one of the most valuable public companies in the world. today its net income exceeds tho individual gross domestic product of more than 100 countries. that is in large part due to the success of the iphone, apple's signature smart phone product. for over a decade, iphone sales have made up a majority of apple's annual revenue. today apple's share of the u.s. performance smart phone market exceeds 70% and its share of the entire u.s. smart phone market exceeds 65%.

apple charges nearly $1,600 for an iphone but as we alleged apple has maintained monopoly power in the smart phone market not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits but by violating federal anti-trust law. consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies break the law. we allege apple employed a strategy that relies on exclusive anti-competitive co both consumers and developers. for consumers, that has meant fewer lower quality smartphones, absent accessories apps and acc, and less innovation from applec, and its competitors. for developers, that has meant being forced to play by rules competition. and as outlined in our complaint, we allege that apple consolidated its monopoly power

not by making its own products better but by making other products worse. apple carries out its exclusionary conduct in two ways, imposes contractual restrictions and fees that limit the feature and functionality that developers can offer iphone users. second, apple selectively restricts access to the points of connection between third party apps and the iphone's operating system. degrading the functionality nonapple apps and accessories. as a result, for most of the past 15 years, apple has collected a tax in the form of a 30% commission on the price of any app downloaded from the app store as well as on in-app purchases. apple is able to command these fees from companies of all sizes. apple has also suppressed the emergence of programs like cloud

streaming apps, including gaming apple's own operating system is and expensive hardware. and as any iphone user who ever has seen a green text message or received a tiny grainy video can attest, apple's anti-competitive conduct also includes making it more difficult for iphone users to message with users of nonapple products. it does this by diminishing the functionality of its own messaging app and by diminishing the functionality of third party messaging apps. by doing so apple knowingly and deliberately degrades quality, privacy and security for its users. for example, if an iphone user messages a noniphone user in apple messages, the text appears not only as a green bubble but incorporates limited functionality. the conversation is not

encrypted, videos are pixelated and grainy and users cannot edit messages or see typing indicators. as a result, iphone users perceive rival smart phones as being lower quality because the experience■■p of messaging fries and family who do not own i phones is worse even though apple isesponsible for breaking cross platform messaging. and it does so intentionally. for example, in 2013, a senior executive at apple explains that supporting cross platform messaging and apple messages, quote, would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iphone families giving their kids android phones, close quote. in 2022, apple's c.e.o. is asked whether apple would fix apple to android messaging. the questioner added, quote, not to make it personal, but i can't send my mom certain videos,

close quote. apple c.e.o. responded, buy your mom an iphone. in addition to selectively controlling app distribution and creation, we allege that apple is violating the law b conditionally restricting developer's access to the interface which is needed to make an app functional on the apple operating system. for a product like a smart watch or a digital wallet to be useful to an iphone user, it must be able to communicate with the iphone's operating system. but apple creates barriers that make it extremely difficult and expensive for users and to venture outside the apple ecosystem. when it comes to smart watches, apple not only ivers users to purchase an apple watch which is only compatible with an iphone, it also uses its technical and contractual controls to make it harder for someone with an iphone to use a nonapple smart

watch. when it comes to digital waltz, apple's exclusionary conduct goes a step further. digital wallets allows users to store and use credentials in cards, personal identification, movie tickets and car keys. apple wallet is apple's proprietary wallet on the iphone. apple actively encourages banks, merchants and others to participate in apple wallet but simultaneously exerts its monopoly power to block the same partners from developing alternative payment products and servicesor blocked third party developers from creating competing digital wallets on the iphone. they use what is known as tap to pay functionality. that is the function that makes a digital wallet, well, a wallet. instead, apple forces those who

want to use the wallet function to share personal information with apple, even if they'd prefer to share that information solely with their bank, medical providers, or other trusted third party. when an iphone user puts a credit or debit card in apple wallet, apple inserts itself into the process that would otherwise occur directly between the user and the card issuer. this introduces an additional potential point of failure for the privacy and security of apple users. and that is just one way apple is willing to make the iphone less secure and less private in order to maintain■] its monopoly power. the supreme court defines monopoly power as, quote, the power to control prices or exclude competition. as set out in our complaint, apple has that power in the smart phone market. now, having monopoly power does not itself violate the

anti-trust laws but it does when a firm acquires or maintains monopoly power not because it has a superior product or superbusiness acumen but by engaging in exclusionary conduct as set out in our complaint, apple has maintained its power, not because of its superiority, because of exclusionary behavior. monopolies like apple's threaten the free and fair markets upon which our economy is based. they stifle innovation. they hurt producers and workers and they increase costs for consumers. if left unchallenged, apple will only continue to strengthen its smart phone monopoly. but there's a law the justice department will vigorously enforce anti-trust law, enforcinghe law protects consumers from higher prices and fewer choices.

that is the justice department's legal obligation. that is what the american people that is what they deserve. i am grateful to the attorneys and staff of the department's anti-trust division for their tireless work on this case on behalf of the american people. i'll now turn the podium over to the deputy attorney general. >> thank you very much, mr. attorney general, and good morning, everyone. in our fight against corporate misconduct, the department's approach is straightforward and relentless. we identify the most serious wrongdoers, whether individuals or companies, and then we focus our full energy■) and devote all necessary resources to holding them accountable. accountability promotes fairness, it drives deterrence and advances the rule of law.

by holding all companies to the same standards, our approach to corporate enforcement benefits all americans. americans who deserve and who demand a justice system that holds accountable those who break the law. for over a century, our federal anti-trust laws have been a critical tool for protecting competition. the competition that fuels and drives our nation's economy. these laws protect consumer choice in the market. they keep prices in check. they promote quality. and they open doors to innovation. today the department alleges that apple, one of the world's largest tech companies, crossed the line from rigorous competition to anti-competitive exclusions unlawfully maintaining a monopoly in violation of the sherman act. the complaint makes clear that for years, apple has tightened

its grip on the smart phone market. it has done so not by product improvements but by maintaining a chokehold on competition, locking its customers in to the iphone while locking its competitors out of the market. as a result and as the complaint details, apple has gone from revolutionizing the smart phone market to stalling its advancement. this shift has smothered an entire industry, from users to app developers, to the next generation of innovators. apple's■ anti-competitivconduct must stop. 16 other attorneys general agree. and they've joined us in bringing this la■wsuit against apple. i want to thank the women and men of the anti-trust division for their commitment to promoting competition and consus in all of their work. and i want to thank assistant

attorney general cantor for his leadership. their work makes clear that no matter how powerful, no matter how prominent, no matter how popular, no company is above the law. through today's action, we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to this principle. and with that, i'll hand it off to the acting associate attorney general. >> thank you deputy attorney general monaco. i want to echo the attorney general and deputy attorney general, thanks to the leadership and staff to the anti-trust division for all their extraordinary work in promoting competition and advancing economic opportunity. the landmark microsoft case held

a monopoly liable under the anti-trust laws for leveraging its market position to would hae made it easier for users to choose different computer operating systems. today's complaint alleges that apple has engaged in many of the same tactics that microsoft used. the complaint describes how apple's anti-competitive conduct discourages developers from offering new and innovative application and makes it more difficult for consumers to switch to other smart phones. apple's conduct leaves consumers with higher prices, fewer new products, and a worse user experience. in this way, today's complaint also reflects the broader importance of vigorous anti-trust enforcement. markets that lack competition shift power from consumers and workers to powerful corporations. a lack of competition means fewer choices and higher prices

for consumers. it means fewer options and lower wages for workers. and it means that the owners of powerful corporations make more without expanding the size of the pie for anyone else. competh anti-trust enforcement levels that playing field and is critical to promoting economic opportunity and equity. the department has been and remains committed to pursuing these goals wherever anti-competitive government arises. in the airline industry we've successfully challenged mergers that would lead to higher ticket prices and fewer price options for travelers. earlier this month jetblue and spirit announced they were abandoning their proposed merger in a major victory forely on con airlines to travel affordably. we have also weighed in on important cases affecting how much american families pay for housing, explaining why it is

unlawful for landlords to collude to raise rental prices even when a.i. technology is used to do that. and we have prioritizeed criminal anti-trust enforcement, cracking down on bid rigging and procurement fraud schemes that victimize federal, state and local governments and ultimately taxpayers. these are just a few recent examples of the work of the anti-trust division and the department more broadly has done ensure the american people have equal opportunity in the marketplace. today's suit against apple reflects our continued commitment to promoting competition and advancing economic justice. i'll now turn it over to assistant attorney general >> good morning. thank you, attorney general garland, deputy attorney general monaco, acting associate

attorney general mizer, and and a special welcome to new jersey attorney general plotkin and i'd like to browns doha and the deputy assistant attorney general. the department of justice has a enduring legacy taking on the biggest and toughest monopolies in history. this includes historic cases against standard oil, at&t, and microsoft. today we add to that distinguished legacy by announcing an anti-trust lawsuit against apple from monopolizeing smart phones. approximate 25 years ago, the department of justice, states attorneys general announced a case against a different platform monopolist. that successful litigation and remedy created opportunities for

the next generation of technologies, including and especially apple. 25 years ago, it would have been difficult to imagine the innovation that would follow from the proliferation of mobile devices and services. that historic anti-trust case, however, played a pivotal role in usherg the next generation of technologies. apple itself was a significant beneficiary of that case and the remedy paveed the way for apple to launch itunes, ipod, eventually the iphone. free from anti-competitive restrictions, excessive fees, and retaliation. today we stand here once again to protect competition and innovation for the next generation of technology. smart phones have so revolutionized american life that it can be hard to imagine a

world beyond the one that apple self-interested monopolists deem good enough, close quote. under our system of anti-trust laws, good enough is quite simply not enough. the law mandates that apple self-interested business strategies alone deliver innovation and choice. this is particularly important in areas of the economy that impact our daily lives, and it is hard to think of a product that is more essential to our daily lives that smart phones. competition does not just protect the market and technologies of today but the innovations of tomorrow. we bring this case to make sure apple competes by innovating rather than fees to prevent others from innovating and competing, too.

and in doing so, beprotect the market for the innovations that we can't yet perceive. alongside our colleagues, the states attorneys general, we've conducted a methodical, thorough, and extensive investigation that has uncovered a pattern of anti-competitive conduct by apple. our lawsuit sets forth extensive facts and includes substantial excerpts from apple's own internal documents. our lawsuit explains apple's long-standing pattern of harmful anti-competitive behavior, and apple has inflicted using that anti-competitive behavior, anti-competitive harm that is acute and substantial. for example, apple's conduct has resulted in less competition to lower the price of smart phones for american consumers. consumers are paying more as a result for digital goods,

services, and subscriptions. smart phone users are losing out on new, innovative, and more secure features that can reduce the need for expensive hardware, unlock major technological advances, and allow for more secure communications. developers, artists, content creators are paying hefty fees as apple gains more control over the creation and distribution of content. banks and credit unions are now paying new credit card fees for every tap to pay transaction initiated from an iphone in retail stores and businesses. these fees will cost the u.s. economy billions of dollars. apple long relied on contractual restrictions rather than competition on the merits

to fortify its monopoly power. we know this because apple's internal documents tell us as much. in 2010, a senior apple executive emailed the then c.e.o. of apple about an ad for a new kindle reader. the ad began with a woman using her iphone to buy and read books on a kindle app and switches to using an android smart phone and continues to read her books using the same app. the senior executive at apple expressed his concerns in candid terms, a, and i quote, message that can't be missed is that it is easy to switch from iphone to android, not fun to watch,lose quote. apple was clear its response to this competitive threat. apple would, and i quote, force, close quote, developers into using apple's payment system. as we allege in our lawsuit,

apple repeatedly responded to competitive threats like this one by making it harder to leave than making it more attractive to stay. the anti-trust laws have something to say about that. in closing, i would like to k unbelievably hard-working, dedicated, talented, and extremely awesome staff of the anti-trust division, many of whom are in back. they're exceptional public servants and i'm so proud every day to call them colleagues. i'd also like to thank the attorneys general and their incredible teams from arizona, california, connecticut, district of columbia, maine, michigan, minnesota, new hampshire, new jersey, new york, north dakota, oklahoma, oregon, tennessee, vermont, and wisconsin.

finally, i extend our deepest gratitude to the u.s. attorney and his extraordinary team from the district of new jersey who join us in filing this important and historic case. a great privilege now to turn the podium over to the attorney general in the great state of new jersey. >> good morning. i'm honored to stand here today alongside attorney general garland, deputy attorney general monaco, acting associate attorney general mizer and assistant attorney general cantor and the rest of the departmentju of the 9.3 million residents of the state state of new jersey and a bipartisan group of 16 attorneys general. because no matter which state we represent, we're all responsible for protecting the well-being of our residents and that includes their economic well-being. as we've heard, we're here today because apple has consistently

and deliberately engaged in anti-competive business practices designed to maximize their profits and profits for their shareholders while minimizing the ability of the consumers to switch to a competitor or otherwise cut their costs. i'd wager just about everyone in this room and everyone watching this press conference has a smart phone and nearly seven of every 10 smart phones are iphones. that's not an accident. rather than compete on an even playing field, apple has stifled innovation in order to gain total control of the iphone software ecosystem. as a result, iphone users become dependent on apple and its products and find the process of switching phones exceedingly costly and complex. the company has created a marketplace in which developers, consumers, and others only by rules established by apple for apple. in 2016, the company announced

it sold one billion iphone, number that continues to climb. when that milestone was reached, apple c.e.o. tim cook said iphones, quote, had become more than aon companion. the iphone is truly an essential part of our daily life, end quote. that dependence was no accident. apple made theph daily life by e features and functionality that developers could offer iphone customers and by selectively controlling access between apps and the iphone operating system. as we know in the complaint, apple products its business model by restricting technologies that would make it easier for iphone customers to switch to another smart phone. those restrictions go to the core of apple's unlawful conduct and the end result is that you pay more money for an inferior product. as new jersey's attorney general, it is my responsibility to protect the rights of consumers in my state and ensure that businesses treat them fairly no matter how large or

powerful they are. what my fellw attorneys general do every day on behalf of their residents. monopolies are the antithesis of our free market economy. they drive up costs and limit options for consumers across our states and across this country. and thanks to the actions like we are taking today alongside our partners in the department of justice, we will stop them. thank you. reporter: attorney general, can i ask you a question about antitrust. obviously the department is suing google and other departments suing amazon and facebook. those are four of the greatest business success stories of modern history, what does it say to you they're all accused of illegal anti-competitive behavior and if you could indulge me in an off the question -- >> first the anti-trust fund question and maybe i'll have more success with that one.

the justice department does not have a different rule for the powerless or the powerful or the rich compared to the poor. we have one rule, we look at the facts and the law and make the appropriate determinations. with respect to resource allocation, when you have an institution with lots of resources, that in our view is harming the american economy and the american people, it's important for us to allocate our resource protect the american people. and that is certainly the case where individual americans have no ability to protect themselves. reporter: and reporter: you personally have come in further criticism particularly from the white house who said that he should have acted to keep them from characterizing the president's memory really hated in that report. --■% you should have stepped in. what is your response to that?

ag garland: no one in from the whitho president announced my nomination, he said to me directly into the public that he intended to destroy the independence and integrity of the justice department and that he will need to serve for the american people, not the lawyer for the president. i sincerely believe that is what he intended than and that's ds . reporter: but to think that was appropriate, the language used to characterize the president's mental state? ag garland: i said from the very beginning that i would make public the report of all the special counsels appointed during the period of my service. that is consistent with the regulation which requires a special counsel to explain what the special counsel's decisions are, it is consistent with the precedents, the full

disclosure of all special counsel reports in the entire 25 years in which the regulation has been in effect. it is consistent with the common practice during the previous period of the independent counsel started. the idea that an attorney general would edit or redact or censor the special counsel's explanation for why the special counsel reachzsed the decision that special counsel did, that's absurd. reporter: today's complaint focuses specifically on the iphone market and smartphone markets. there were reports in recent months that potentially thdo ats of apple's business. i was curious if you could explain why you focused specifically on iphones at this moment, in time and whether the

doj remains open to broaden this challenge against apple given also the argument that the alleged misconduct has reported effects across the entire monopoly. ag garland: our general practice is not to discuss matters we have not announced. i will not answer the latter part of your question. on the first part of the question, i think our complaint explains where we are focused on the iphone. it is exclusionary conduct by apple to maintain its monopoly in that area, and it is the consequences for innovation, prices, the efft on both consumers, developers, banks and credit card companies. i think i will let mr. kanter say anything else he wants to add to that. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. we focus on the core monopoly. apple's core monopoly is in the iphone. we focus on the conduct that apple's engaged in to legally maintain its monopoly in the iphone and that relates to theu.

we have provided extensive detail about practices across a broad range of services and features throughout the iphone ecosystem that have contributed to illegally maintaining apple's monopoly power. reporter: dave michaels from the wall street journal. the government is not the first plaintiff to accuse apple of anticompetitive product, so vernment is better positioned here to prosecute a successful case, including why this is a viable case in spite of the fact that apple mostly beat the case that epic games filed against apple? also, do you think your lawsuit will ultimately lead to lower fees in the app store for developers and consumers? ag garland: look, the united states normally wins the cases it brings. we bring cases because we believe the facts and the law justify them and because we believe that we are likely to win those cases. i will let mr. kanter,

again,. >> thank you, attorney general. we have focused on our pattern of conduct that goes back over a decade that apple has engaged in in order to reinforce its monopoly■ power by excluding rivals, excluding technologies and strafing innovations that would threaten apple's stranglehold on its monopoly power. the extensiveness and the specificity in our complaint speaks for itself, and i think you will notice that it is distinct from cases that have been brought elsewhere that focus on narrow products and services. reporter: thank you, attorney general. a question specifie is already f congress in response to this lawsuit saying that if apple can't that the apps that are sold on its pla

and russia and other adversaries, if you will, from getting onto people's f.how do t criticism? ag garland: once again i will go to mr. kanter for the specifics, but in general, this lawsuit is not aimed at every kind of vetting or other activity that apple does with respect to the app store. it is aimed at exclusionary conduct. as we have set forth in the complaint, there are many things of that exclusionary conduct that do not help security and in fact some that actually harm security. so i will leave it to mr. kanter to describe this in more specifics. mr. kanter: thank you, attorney general. privacy and security are extremely important values. competition makes devices and services more private and more secure. our complaint explains very

clearly why the legal exclusionary conduct apple is engaged in is not necessary to protect privacy, while the legal and exclusionary conduct apple has engaged in is not necessary to protect security and privacy. in fact, as the attorney general mentioned, our complaint explains that in many instances, apples conduct has made its ecosystem less private and less secure.