• Home
  • News
  • Coins2Day 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia
TechApple

Here’s where Apple’s antitrust monitor crossed the line

By
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Down Arrow Button Icon
By
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Down Arrow Button Icon
May 28, 2015, 4:52 PM ET

My colleague Jeff John Roberts reported the news: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday scolded but did not remove Michael Bromwich, the former U.S. Inspector general who has been monitoring Apple’s antitrust compliance in the wake of the e-books price-fixing case.

“Scold” is the right word. Reading the decision, I’m struck by how many ways the Court found to say that Bromwich had crossed the line. Excerpts:

  • “Bromwich’s submission in conjunction with a litigant’s brief was the opposite of best practice for a court-appointed monitor.”
  • “The manner in which the declaration was filed, and the fact that it was preceded by at least some ex parte communications with the plaintiffs… may raise ‘an appearance of partiality’ and ‘an appearance of impropriety.’”
  • “Bromwich coordinated with the plaintiffs in their opposition to Apple’s stay motion in the district court, and submitted an affidavit as an integral part of the opposition papers.”
  • “It is certainly remarkable that an arm of the court would litigate on the side of a party in connection with an application to the court he serves.”
  • “Bromwich is … subject to his professional responsibilities: as a lawyer, he is bound to respect the role of counsel and the adversarial system; as an impartial arm of the court, his responsibility to those institutions is a public trust.”
  • “These largely procedural questions have considerable resonance because the fairness and integrity of the courts can be compromised by inadequate constraint on a monitor’s aggressive use of judicial power.”

.

Apple had asked that Bromwich be removed. Judge Denise Cote, who appointed him, refused. It was with some reluctance that the appeals court let that refusal stand:

While some of Apple’s allegations against the monitor give pause, we are limited by both the record and our appellate jurisdiction.

Apple still insists it did nothing wrong when it encouraged publishers to raise the price of e-books. A decision on its appeal of Judge Cotes’ original decision is expected this summer.

See Jeff John Roberts’ piece for an annotated version of Thursday’s ruling.

Follow Philip Elmer-DeWitt on Twitter at @philiped. Read his Apple (AAPL) coverage at coins2day.com/ped or subscribe via his RSS feed.

About the Author
By Philip Elmer-DeWitt
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Coins2Day 500
  • Global 500
  • Coins2Day 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Coins2Day Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Coins2Day Brand Studio
  • Coins2Day Analytics
  • Coins2Day Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Coins2Day
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Coins2Day Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Coins2Day Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.