Published: Mon, May 13, 2019
Electronics | By Kelly Massey

Supreme Court Rules Against Apple in App Store Monopoly Lawsuit

Supreme Court Rules Against Apple in App Store Monopoly Lawsuit

It simply allowed for the lawsuit to go forward before a lower court.

"It doesn't change how much apps cost, what Apple charges its developers, or whether consumers can load apps from outside the App Store", said Techsponential lead analyst Avi Greengart.

Instead, it believes developers are the only "direct purchasers" who have the right to sue.

iPhone owners filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple back in 2011.

Apple's response was a legal classic: It claimed that the iPhone users could not sue it because they weren't purchasing Apple products directly from Apple.

If a court rules that the App Store is an unfair use of monopoly power, Apple could stand to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers. -China tariff dispute, were down more than 5% Monday in morning trading. This commission structure results in higher prices for consumers, the plaintiffs argued.

Pompeo skips Moscow to meet with European officials on Iran
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, according to the State Department. This will be the second meeting between Lavrov and Pompeo this month.


"Apple's theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic retailers to structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers so as to evade antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart effective antitrust enforcement", Kavanaugh wrote.

"Apple's line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits", Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion.

The court has not declared Apple monopolists yet, but this ruling does allow the case to proceed.

The report also claims that not just iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, and iPhone SE, the upcoming iOS 13 will not be released for the iPhone 5s, the iPad mini 2, and iPad Air as well as these devices are over 5 years old, and were released in 2013.

In that case, the court limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged rather than indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others. The core of Apple's argument is that, while it maintains the App Store, the prices for apps within it are set by developers. "In other words, Apple as retailer pockets a 30% commission on every app sale", said Kavanaugh, one of President Donald Trump's two high court appointees.

Like this: