A U.S. appeals court has upheld Apple’s victory in a high-profile antitrust dispute, ruling that the company was not legally required to share Apple Watch heart-monitoring data with a rival health-tech developer.
In a decision issued Thursday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously rejected claims by Silicon Valley startup AliveCor Inc., which accused Apple of unlawfully blocking access to medical data to suppress competition.
Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland said AliveCor failed to overcome a core principle of antitrust law: companies generally have no obligation to do business with competitors.
“AliveCor has not established an exception to the general rule that there is no antitrust duty to deal,” the court wrote.
AliveCor sued Apple in 2021 after software updates to the Apple Watch limited third-party access to certain heart-rate data, a change that affected AliveCor’s cardiac monitoring applications.
The startup argued Apple used the changes to shut out rivals while developing competing health features for its own smartwatch. It accused Apple of monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Apple countered that the software updates were part of legitimate product development aimed at improving user experience and data accuracy.
While a lower court previously ruled in Apple’s favor by classifying the changes as lawful product improvements, the Ninth Circuit took a different approach. The appellate panel said the outcome did not hinge on whether the changes improved Apple’s products.
Even if AliveCor were correct on that point, the judges said, Apple still had no legal duty to provide proprietary health data to a competitor.
The panel concluded that Apple’s conduct amounted to a refusal to deal, a category of behavior that is typically shielded from antitrust liability under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Verizon Communications v. Trinko, which sharply limits circumstances under which a company can be forced to assist rivals.
AliveCor also argued Apple controlled an “essential facility” by restricting access to the data. The panel rejected that theory, warning that antitrust law does not require a company to hand over assets simply because a competitor believes it would help them compete more effectively.
“The essential facilities doctrine does not impose a duty on a monopolist to provide whatever the competitor believes would allow it to provide a superior product,” the court said.
The judges also noted that Apple continues to share certain heart-rate data with third-party developers, but is not required to preserve older data structures indefinitely.
AliveCor said it was disappointed by the ruling but emphasized that the decision does not disrupt its current operations.
“We remain steadfast in our mission to transform the industry with clinically validated, AI-powered solutions that democratize access to cardiac care,” the company said in a statement.
Apple did not immediately comment on the decision.
The decision reinforces strong legal protections for technology companies redesigning their platforms, even when those changes disadvantage third-party developers. It also underscores how difficult it is for plaintiffs to succeed on antitrust claims based on access to proprietary data or software interfaces.
Case: AliveCor Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Case No. 24-1392
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
