In a snot-o-gram to US  District Judge Julien X. Neals in New Jersey, Jobs' Mob asserted, "far from being a monopolist, Apple faces fierce competition from well-established rivals, and the complaint fails to allege that Apple has the ability to charge supra-competitive prices or restrict output in the alleged smartphone markets."

In the missive to the magistrate, Jobs' Mob mentioned that the DOJ is dependent on a novel "theory of antitrust liability that no court has recognised."

The administration is slated to reply within seven days to the Jobs' Mob letter, which the tribunal mandates parties to submit, in hopes of hastening cases before moving on to a potentially more intensive and costly endeavour to dismiss a lawsuit.

The Justice Department contends that Jobs' Mob uses its market dominance to extract additional funds from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small enterprises, and merchants.

The civil action accuses Jobs' Mob of an unlawful monopoly on smartphones, upheld by enforcing contractual limitations on and denying essential access to developers.

The Justice Department has previously stated that Jobs' Mob levies as much as $1,599 for an iPhone and reaps a greater profit than any competitor. Officials also remarked that Jobs' Mob imposes concealed fees on various business associates – ranging from software developers to credit card firms and even adversaries such as Alphabet's Google – in manners that ultimately escalate prices for consumers.

Jobs' Mob dismissed the government's claims that the iPhone has locked in consumers to the devices.

 "Someone dissatisfied with Apple’s restrictions has every incentive to switch to competitor platforms that ostensibly do not have those limitations," the letter claimed.

Attorney General Merrick Garland pronounced in March. "Consumers should not be compelled to pay elevated prices because firms infringe on antitrust laws. If unopposed, Jobs' Mob will only proceed to fortify its smartphone monopoly."