Groups of buyers accusing Apple of monopolizing smartphone and smartwatch markets told a New Jersey federal court the multidistrict litigation concerns the same allegations that recently survived dismissal in a government action.

The three groups of buyers filed separate oppositions Thursday to a motion from Apple seeking dismissal of the claims. The buyers are seeking to recover overcharges for iPhone and Apple Watch purchases allegedly stemming from the tech giant's monopoly over smartphone and smartwatch markets.

U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals refused to toss similar claims from federal and state enforcers in June and the direct and indirect iPhone buyers said Thursday this means their claims should survive as well.

"In every material respect, [the direct iPhone purchasers'] allegations parallel the allegations that this court already held sufficient to plead a claim for unlawful monopolization against Apple," the direct buyers' response said.

Apple contended in its motion that the buyers' claims should be tossed, even though the government case survived dismissal, because private actions face unique hurdles and because the buyers' claims conflict with the governments' in some respects.

One of the areas that Apple contends the cases differ is in how they define the markets that are allegedly being monopolized, but the iPhone buyers said in their responses that the cases all accuse Apple of having a monopoly over smartphones and performance smartphones sold in the U.S.

"And they all plead that Apple has imposed a 'lock in' strategy that creates barriers for consumers to switch from iPhones to competing smartphones and allows Apple to charge supracompetitive iPhone prices," the indirect buyers said Thursday.

The buyers, like the government, accuse Apple of monopolizing the smartphone market by restricting third-party developers to undermine competing products and services and to prevent users from switching to other smartphones. This allegedly includes degrading the quality of cross-platform messaging apps, suppressing mobile cloud services and digital wallets and limiting the functionality of non-Apple smartwatches.

In addition to the iPhone buyers, the multidistrict litigation also includes claims from Apple Watch buyers. They argued in response to Apple's dismissal motion Thursday that iPhone owners have little choice when purchasing a smartwatch because Apple is interfering with the ability of rivals and developers to compete.

As examples, the response said iPhone owners cannot send text messages from a non-Apple smartwatch or maintain a stable connection with other smartwatches because of technological restrictions. The response also said developers are unable to advertise that their apps are compatible with other smartwatches because Apple's contracts forbid it.

"This conduct has crushed or driven away competitors," the Apple Watch buyers said. "Once Apple entered the market, Samsung and Pebble exited. Potential competitors Google and Meta declined to enter."

The response said Apple's primary argument for dismissal of the smartwatch claims is that it has no "duty to deal" with its competitors. But the buyers said this does not shield Apple from the impact its conduct has on consumers and app developers who are not its rivals.

"This court rejected that argument in the government case and should reject it again now," the response said. "The court must assess Apple's conduct 'as a whole' — not each specific restraint in isolation."

The U.S. Department of Justice and contingent of state enforcers first filed their sweeping antitrust suit against Apple in New Jersey federal court in March 2025. The DOJ suit rounded out a quartet of long-anticipated government antitrust litigation that was already proceeding against Google, Meta and Amazon.

Days later, a group of iPhone buyers filed suit, launching three separate proposed class actions accusing the tech giant of suppressing innovation, which were later included in an MDL centered in the same court as the DOJ case before the same judge.

Representatives for Apple and the buyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

Co-lead interim class counsel for direct iPhone purchasers plaintiffs is William Christopher Carmody, Shawn J. Rabin, Cory Buland and Mark Musico of Susman Godfrey LLP, James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello PC, Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP, Steven W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Dena Sharp of Girard Sharp LLP and Melinda R. Coolidge of Hausfeld LLP.

Interim co-lead counsel for the indirect iPhone purchaser plaintiffs is Stanley O. King of Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins PC, Michael Dell'Angelo, Candice J. Enders and J. Taylor Hollinger of Berger Montague PC, Matthew S. Weiler, Todd M. Schneider, Raymond S. Levine and Suneel Jain of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP, Heidi M. Silton, Jessica N. Servais, Joseph C. Bourne and Michael J.K.M. Kinane of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and William G. Caldes, Jeffrey L. Spector and Rachel Kopp of Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC.

Co-lead interim counsel for the Apple Watch plaintiffs is Thomas R. Curtin and Kathleen N. Fennelly of McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP, George A. Zelcs, David Walchak, Daniel Epstein, Stephen M. Tillery and Carol O'Keefe of Korein Tillery LLC, Steven F. Molo, Lauren F. Dayton, Eric A. Posner, Matthew E. Gold, Kayvon M. Ghayoum and Caroline A. Veniero of MoloLamken LLP and David C. Frederick, Aaron M. Panner, Alex A. Parkinson, Scott K. Attaway, Ariela M. Migdal and Katherine V. Tondrowski of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC.

Apple is represented by Cynthia E. Richman, Daniel G. Swanson, Joseph R. Rose, Julian W. Kleinbrodt and Connor S. Sullivan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Liza M. Walsh and Douglas E. Arpert of Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP and Craig S. Primis, Matthew J. Reilly, K. Winn Allen, Luke P. McGuire, Devora W. Allon and Alexia R. Brancato of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is In re: Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation, case number 2:24-md-03113, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.