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 - Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., told the Federalist Society in a keynote address Thursday night the coronavirus pandemic has led to "previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty." "I am not diminishing the severity of the virus's threat to public health," Alito continued in a... Read More
WASHINGTON -- So much for the new conservative majority of the Supreme Court dismantling the Affordable Care Act. On Tuesday, during oral arguments for California v. Texas, one of this term's most anticipated cases, two members of that majority, suggested they're not inclined to strike down... Read More
WASHINGTON — This morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a legal challenge seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act. This third major challenge to the ACA heard by the Supreme Court, Texas v. California seeks to decide whether Congress, by eliminating the penalty... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett hears oral argument Tuesday in a case that threatens to wipe out the 2010 health care law, likely the term's most consequential case, under a political spotlight that rarely shines brighter on justices who would rather stay out of it.... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday set aside an appeals court ruling by a panel of conservative judges that held an injured police officer could sue and win damages from the leader of a Black Lives Matter protest rally. The case had raised alarms among civil libertarians, who said it... Read More
WASHINGTON — Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined her new colleagues on the Supreme Court Monday, participating in oral arguments for the first time. The cases on the docket Monday were no head-turners. The first, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club Inc., concerned public disclosure... Read More