The United States Department of Justice is ramping up its fight against Apple in an antitrust case that’s grabbing headlines this week, as government lawyers and Apple’s team gear up for a new round of arguments that could reshape how the tech giant does business and ripple across the entire digital landscape.

The case is currently centered in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a recent three-judge ruling tossed out a private suit claiming Apple and Google conspired not to compete in paid search advertising—mostly upholding earlier decisions in Apple’s favor. But the focus now is squarely on broader antitrust accusations, many spearheaded by the Department of Justice and state attorneys general, who argue Apple uses its immense control over its platforms and its relationships with other tech giants to stifle competition and inflate prices for consumers and advertisers.

Key players on the Department of Justice side include Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Gail Slater, who publicly emphasized last week the Biden administration’s commitment to using big antitrust cases to promote innovation in tech, following the legacy of historic battles against companies like Microsoft. On Apple’s side, the top brass are closely involved in preparations and strategy, though Tim Cook has largely kept a low public profile as the company weighs both legal risks and potential product impacts.

Recent court action hasn’t all been grim for Apple. Earlier in September, the three-judge panel firmly rejected claims that Apple and Google had an illegal “don’t compete” agreement about search, noting that while Apple did set Google as the default on Safari, there was no direct evidence of an unlawful “horizontal conspiracy.” They said nothing in the agreement explicitly stopped Apple from building its own search engine, undercutting claims Apple had promised not to compete with Google in search—a major but narrow win for Apple. The aggrieved party, California Crane School, is pressing for a rehearing, arguing that new evidence from the Department of Justice’s separate case against Google changes things, but that’s still pending and seems a longshot given the appellate court’s skepticism.

For the Department of Justice, momentum is mixed. In a parallel antitrust case targeting Google’s ad tech business, the Department of Justice scored a win earlier this year when a federal judge ruled Google monopolized key advertising tools, but the same judge stopped short of forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser or unwind all its default search deals, including those with Apple. That partial result is informing strategy in the Apple litigation, where the Department of Justice argues structural remedies—such as breaking up entrenched agreements—may be the only way to restore true competition in markets long dominated by a handful of tech giants.

In terms of outcome projections, legal analysts say it’s tough to call: Apple still holds several procedural advantages and the courts so far have demanded specific, well-documented evidence of a conspiracy or unfair exclusion, which can be a high bar. However, the Biden Department of Justice has signaled a willingness to keep pressing large-scale, systemic antitrust cases, suggesting Apple may be in for a protracted legal fight. The broader impact, if the Department of Justice prevails, could be a wave of industry reform—more open platforms, better access and pricing for developers and advertisers, and a shake-up in how tech firms structure search and ad deals. That would not just alter the competitive field for Google and Apple, but could shift the digital economy for years to come.

On the flip side, if Apple emerges largely unscathed, it will reinforce the current model where dominant platforms can reach powerful commercial arrangements without immediate antitrust repercussions, likely meaning less change for users in the short term and...