Apple admitted that the interactions between the company and its monitor were “rocky at times”, but disagreed with the Justice Department’s claim of being uncooperative.
Advertisement
Bromwich was first installed in Cupertino back in October 2013, after Apple was found to have illegally colluded with five book publishers to raise e-book prices in a way that was deemed to have hurt Apple’s competition.
It’s something of an understatement to say that Apple’s relationship with its mandatory monitor was strained, and the company went to court several times to get rid of him.
The Department of Justice told a federal judge Monday that it did not believe there was a need to continue the tenure of an independent monitor appointed after Apple was found to have conspired to raise e-book prices.
The U.S. Department of Justice has recommended against extending the term of Apple antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich after two years of oversight, citing satisfaction with the company’s new compliance program and willingness to meet mandated obligations.
What are the odds that Bromwich and Tim Cook will remain friends now their working relationship is over? It was felt that Bromwich was trying to shove his nose into parts of Apple’s business that didn’t relate to iBooks, and greatly exaggerated the extent of his powers.
In its own statement submitted to the court, Apple said that it had acted in accordance with its rights under the law.
But Cote said Bromwich had “persevered and made numerous recommendations to Apple for the improvement of its antitrust compliance program”, the vast majority of which Apple implemented.
The monitor, Michael Bromwich, was responsible for producing regular reports on Apple’s antitrust rules compliance program.
Advertisement
If it stands, the appellate ruling would require Apple to pay $450 million in a settlement of related claims by 31 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and consumers.
