I believe that the CFA antitrust lawyer stated it perfectly.
Quote:
The CFA, meanwhile, is represented by noted antitrust lawyer David Balto. In its brief, Balto and CFA attorneys argue that DoJ’s proposed remedy “is not unusual by comparison to prior antitrust remedial orders,” and is appropriate in light of “the significance of the violation, the gravity of the consumer harm, and defendant’s continued denial.”
Full adoption is warranted, CFA stresses, because “the underlying conduct was willful and [Apple] remains unrepentant.” The brief also notes that the DoJ proved “conduct of a sort often prosecuted criminally, that was knowingly orchestrated by defendant’s highest management.”
Failure to take “strong remedial steps” in a case involving such egregious conduct, the brief concludes, would send a message that “antitrust compliance can be an afterthought and that antitrust penalties are merely a cost of doing business.”
|