Loading...

iPhone Users Can Sue Apple Over App Store Prices, Justices Rule

May 13, 2019 by Dan McCue

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.

Supreme Court

October 22, 2021
by Dan McCue
Justices To Hear Texas Abortion Case on Monday Nov. 1

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will hear a challenge from the federal government and abortion providers to Texas' 6-week abortion... Read More

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will hear a challenge from the federal government and abortion providers to Texas' 6-week abortion ban on Nov. 1, but will leave the law in place while it considers the cases, the court said on Friday. As is their custom, the... Read More

October 15, 2021
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Commission Finds Crisis In Senate Confirmation Process

WASHINGTON -- A presidential panel charged with considering the pros and cons of altering the size and function of the... Read More

WASHINGTON -- A presidential panel charged with considering the pros and cons of altering the size and function of the U.S. Supreme Court is instead calling out the Senate confirmation process for justices. In draft documents released ahead of a public meeting on Friday, the Presidential... Read More

October 14, 2021
by Dan McCue
Justices Consider Whether to Reinstate Marathon Bomber’s Death Sentence

WASHINGTON -- On April 15, 2013, two Chechen-American brothers planted a pair of homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish... Read More

WASHINGTON -- On April 15, 2013, two Chechen-American brothers planted a pair of homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. At approximately 2:49 p.m. that Monday afternoon, the bombs detonated 14 seconds apart, killing three and injuring 264 others. At least... Read More

October 4, 2021
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court Holds DC Not Entitled to Vote in Congress

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that denied District of Columbia residents a voting... Read More

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed a lower court ruling that denied District of Columbia residents a voting member in the House of Representatives. As is their custom, the justices did not explain the rationale behind their summary disposition of the case, though they... Read More

What's Old is New Again: Justices Back at Court for New Term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is beginning a momentous new term with a return to familiar surroundings, the mahogany... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is beginning a momentous new term with a return to familiar surroundings, the mahogany and marble courtroom that the justices abandoned more than 18 months ago because of the coronavirus pandemic. Abortion, guns and religion all are on the agenda... Read More

Abortion, Guns, Religion Top a Big Supreme Court Term

WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of abortion rights is in the hands of a conservative Supreme Court that is beginning a new term Monday that also includes major cases on gun rights and religion. The court's credibility with the public also could be on the line,... Read More

News From The Well
Exit mobile version