Jun 10, 2015 · 2 minutes

Apple Music has attracted scrutiny in New York and Connecticut.

The states are investigating Apple's efforts to get the streaming music service off the ground to determine if it violated antitrust laws during its talks with labels. Of particular concern is the possibility that Apple "pressured" the labels to pull their music from services -- let's be honest, Spotify -- with freemium options.

Connecticut's attorney general confirmed the investigation to Bloomberg:

'We have been working with New York to investigate concerns about potential anticompetitive conduct in the music streaming industry,' Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said in an e-mailed statement. 'At this point, we are satisfied that Universal does not have in place – or in process – anticompetitive agreements to withhold music titles from no-charge streaming services.'
A spokesperson for New York's attorney general gave this statement to Reuters:
'This letter is part of an investigation of the music streaming business, an industry in which competition has recently led to new and different ways for consumers to listen to music,' said Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for the New York attorney-general, Eric Schneiderman.

'To preserve these benefits, it's important to ensure that the market continues to develop free from collusion and other anticompetitive practices.' Apple probably didn't help its case by colluding with book publishers a few years ago in an attempt to wrest control of the market from Amazon. That ultimately led the company to pay a $450 million settlement, and regulators wouldn't be wrong to fear the company would do something similar here.

Yet there's a case to be made for Apple helping destroy the freemium business model on which the modern music industry relies. As Pando's David Holmes explained after the Verge first reported on the company's supposed efforts to convince labels to ditch Spotify's free tier for a paid service like Apple Music:

[T]he current system is broken. Spotify has built a huge user base by providing a complimentary service that it cannot afford to offer for free. Despite striking proprietary deals in secret with labels — deals that many artists say gives them little shot at making a fair wage — the company still isn’t profitable. It doesn’t work for Spotify or artists. The only constituent it does work for — other than perhaps labels who take huge percentages of the streaming revenue — is fans. But for how long? Unless users start paying — which is precisely what Apple’s gambit forces — there is no foreseeable “sustainability” in the streaming industry. And while the EU and DOJ should scrutinize Apple over these moves, the fact that by making a number of potential antitrust violations Apple would be making streaming music more fair, simply speaks to how completely unjust the status quo is.
David then showed how Apple might obviate record labels completely with Apple Music. His argument was that Apple could take over the production of music along with the distribution, ultimately creating a system that wouldn't allow greedy labels to screw over artists and consumers to make a few bucks.

But, of course, these attorneys general aren't much interested in the future of music. It's their job to ensure that Apple didn't violate antitrust laws before it debuted Apple Music. That doesn't seem to be the case -- at least not yet -- but it's clear that these investigations probably won't be ending any time soon.