Attorneys general from states across the country gathered in California recently to discuss consumer protection, giving the issue the attention it deserves. However, they failed to recognize that enforcement authorities have expanded the concept of “consumer protection” to justify actions that run counter to the best interests of consumers.

It’s hypocritical politics, and it’s happening right now with the U.S. Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The agency is acting like a bull in a china shop trying to rearrange the shelves. But instead of shattered china, we’re going to get broken iPhones.

The Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Apple appears to be a patchwork of weak claims. The case fails to recognize the consumer safety and security value behind many of the features the DOJ is targeting. One of these is the App Store, which has strong rules and standards app developers must follow to sell their products on the store. These rules protect consumers’ data and devices from bad actors, which is why the iPhone has remained one of the safest phones in the world. If the DOJ wins, iPhone users are going to be more vulnerable to hackers and scammers.

The lawsuit also suggests Apple’s iMessage prevents consumers from switching to a different phone or messaging service. What the lawsuit fails to recognize is that many users appreciate the end-to-end encryption and security of iMessage. And, if they would like to use a different messaging service, Apple makes it quick and easy to download competitors’ products like WhatsApp or Signal. Any other company that offered their consumers a rival brand would be safe from antitrust accusations, but that’s not what the DOJ cares about in this case.

In addition to being a weak case on the law and the facts that would undermine consumer protections, it also puts tens of thousands of Californians Apple employs and billions of dollars in tax revenue Apple generates for California at risk. Thousands of people in California, many of whom may not even work for Apple but benefit from the economic activity it creates, could lose their jobs if the DOJ is successful.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta does have a track record of supporting legitimate efforts to protect consumers. But not every anti-tech case can stand on the merits, and the DOJ’s case against Apple is a perfect example of a weak case. Unfortunately, Attorney General Bonta signed onto the DOJ’s lawsuit against one of California’s largest employers before it was even made public and before Californians had a chance to make their voices heard. If he had heard their voices, maybe he would’ve seen that this case isn’t going to protect consumers’ interests — it’s going to do the opposite.

It’s not too late for Attorney General Bonta to reevaluate his decision to sign onto the DOJ’s case, and for other state attorneys general not to make the same mistake. He can still weigh the profound implications of this misguided lawsuit and reverse course. If he and the other attorneys general who gathered in San Francisco are truly concerned about protecting consumers, then they should oppose this baseless lawsuit.

Christopher Mohr is president of the Software & Information Industry Association