iPhone Users Can Sue Apple Over App Store Prices, Justices Rule
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday held that iPhone users can proceed with a class-action against Apple over what the plaintiff’s claim is the company’s monopoly over app sales.
While the decision is potentially a landmark ruling for consumers seeking to bring anti-trust cases against corporations, it is also noteworthy because it saw new Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s four liberal members in rejecting Apple’s plea for a dismissal.
Explaining the ruling from the bench, Kavanaugh said, “Leaving consumers at the mercy of monopolistic retailers simply because upstream suppliers could also sue the retailers would directly contradict the longstanding goal of effective private enforcement in antitrust cases.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Presently, iPhone users must purchase software for their smartphones exclusively through Apple’s App Store, something the class claims causes them to pay inflated app prices.
The Cupertino, California-based tech giant, backed by the Trump administration, disputed the legality of the suit, arguing it was only acting as an agent for app developers, who set their own prices and pay Apple’s commission.
Apple had argued that a Supreme Court ruling allowing the case to proceed could pose a threat to e-commerce, a rapidly expanding segment of the U.S. economy worth hundreds of billions of dollars in annual sales.
The justices did not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ case against Apple, but the ruling allows the case to advance through district court.
The plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Robert Pepper of Chicago, filed the suit in a California federal court in 2011, claiming Apple’s monopoly leads to inflated prices compared to if apps were available from other sources.
They were supported by 30 state attorneys general, including from Texas, California and New York.
After a federal judge in Oakland, California tossed the suit, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in 2017, finding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.
A representative of Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.
The case is Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204.
In The News
WASHINGTON — Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the independent-minded jurist whose bright bow ties and courteous manner symbolized an old-fashioned style of integrity, died Tuesday. He was 99. Although he joined the court as a centrist Republican, he emerged in his later years as... Read More
WASHINGTON — Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first appointee to the Supreme Court, is proving to be a different kind of conservative. He is a libertarian who is quick to oppose unchecked government power, even in the hands of prosecutors or the police. And... Read More
AUSTIN, Texas — Hoping to make it harder to overturn abortion restrictions, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block abortion clinics and doctors from challenging state laws on behalf of their patients. Such legal challenges have successfully overturned a number... Read More
WASHINGTON - A day after ending their current term with a pair of controversial opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it will decide next year whether the Trump administration can shut down Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a program that shields 800,000 young, undocumented immigrants... Read More
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court will not revive Alabama's ban on second-trimester abortions, the justices announcing Friday they are content to have lower court orders blocking the law to remain in place. Though Alabama's Attorney General Steve Marshall regularly calls the procedure a "dismemberment abortion,"... Read More
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Thursday that federal judges have no role in settling disputes over partisan gerrymandering appears likely only to intensify efforts in the states to end the practice that allows both political parties to put a stranglehold on electoral majorities. "My... Read More