Some specificity is required when discussing legal concepts like tying and essential facility. For tying, while not a firm ‘rule’ the most common application o

Some specificity is required when discussing legal concepts like tying and essential facility. For tying, while not a firm ‘rule’ the most common application of tying is limited to the ‘tied’ product being from another market when compared to the ‘tying’ product. Also, the current appellate court standard (worded semi-informally) is that a tying of products raises antitrust concerns when it restricts competition AND provides no benefit to consumers. As to essential facility, the most impactful factor for the plaintiff (as in the hardest burden for the government to overcome to establish monopolistic abuse) is as follows: the plaintiff is REQUIRED to prove that the compelled permission to competitors to utilize the “facility” does not interfere or allow for detrimental effects of the dominant firm’s ability to serve its own customers. Apple’s historic marketing speak and other ‘on the record’ statements about the app store’s exclusivity ensuring tight control for the security of Apple’s customers is directly written to advance defenses to these two claims. You can certainly argue that Apple’s conduct is characterized as abuse of monopoly, but there arguments against that can also be compelling. The above IS NOT and should not be considered legal advice.