How the Prosthetic Teeth Monopoly Shaped the Justice Department's Apple Antitrust Lawsuit in New Jersey

So, what do false teeth have to do with the Justice Department's massive lawsuit against Apple? Well, that's probably one of the reasons the Justice Department decided to file the lawsuit in New Jersey, rather than, say, Virginia or Washington, D.C., as it did with Google and Microsoft.

The Justice Department previously filed — and won — a similar antitrust case against a company that makes false teeth in the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey.

In an interview with the edge“The Third Circuit is a jurisdiction that has some good laws for plaintiffs in antitrust cases,” explains William Kovacic, former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and a professor at George Washington University Law School. And points to Antitrust lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice in 2004 v. Dentsply, a dental supply company that manufactures artificial teeth.

“It was a low-tech case involving dentures,” Kovacic says. “But they are [the DOJ] He won and has an opinion stating which view of the law would be in their favor here.

At the time, the Department of Justice accused Dentsply of maintaining a monopoly in the prosthetic teeth business. Dentsply manufactured and sold false teeth to dealers, who then sold them to dental laboratories to make dentures. But, as described in the lawsuit, Dentsply adopted a policy that prevented authorized merchants from adding “more dental lines to their product offerings.” This prevented merchants from selling other brands of false teeth to laboratories, allowing Dentsply to “exclude competitors from the merchant network.”

While the district court initially ruled in Dentsply's favor, the Third Circuit reversed that decision, finding that “the company's grip on its 23 authorized dealers has effectively choked off the market for prosthetic teeth, leaving only a small slice to competitors.” And since the Department of Justice emerged victorious in this particular case, you might think it would have an advantage against Apple here.

“the [Dentsply] “This case focuses largely on efforts by a dominant firm to use exclusive dealing arrangements to prevent competitors from obtaining the inputs they need to succeed,” Kovacic says. “It is a principle that the DC Circuit accepted and applied in the Microsoft monopoly case.” The Department of Justice makes no secret of the fact that it has based much of its case on the antitrust suit against Microsoft as well.

Teeth may not be Just The reason the Department of Justice chose the New Jersey District Court as its location. the edge He also spoke with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of 16 prosecutors involved in the Justice Department's lawsuit. While Bonta says he wasn't heavily involved in choosing the location since the Justice Department was mostly responsible for that decision, he does have some understanding of why the Justice Department chose New Jersey — and it's arguably a little less dramatic than fake teeth.

“I understand that Samsung's headquarters is located there [New Jersey]“They are affected by Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary behavior,” Bonta says. The lawsuit lists both Samsung and Google as Apple's “significant competitors” in the premium smartphone market, and specifically notes that Samsung's US headquarters are “located in this region.”

Additional reporting by Lauren Viner.