Published in News

Supremes tell Apple to stop trying to gerrymander antitrust law

by on14 May 2019


The antitrust case should proceed

Fruity Cargo cult Apple’s bid to get an antitrust case thrown out by the Supreme Court before any evidence was made public has failed.

For those who came in late, Jobs’ Mob was sued by its app store users because it forces iOS users to buy apps through its official App Store and charging developers a 30 percent commission.

Apple, which has been previously convicted under antitrust law, has aggressively tried to get the case thrown out at every stage. One of the reasons Apple is using is that iOS App Store users aren’t its customers and they have no right to sue.  

Apple had claimed that iOS users were technically buying apps from developers, while developers themselves were Apple’s App Store customers. According to an earlier legal doctrine known as Illinois Brick, “indirect purchasers” of a product don’t have the standing to file antitrust cases.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal disagreed and so Apple took the case to the Supreme Court. The Supremes were not impressed with Apple’s mighty briefs.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that 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”.

While the Supremes did not say that Apple has an unlawful monopoly in the App Store it does mean it will have to justify its policies in a court.

Apple v. Pepper claims that by requiring iOS users to buy apps through its official App Store and charging developers a 30 percent commission, Apple is adding a mandatory fee that developers logically pass on to customers.

“A claim that a monopolistic retailer (here, Apple) has used its monopoly to overcharge consumers is a classic antitrust claim. But Apple asserts that the [iOS users] in this case may not sue Apple because they supposedly were not ‘direct purchasers”, writes Judge Kavanaugh. “We disagree. The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers.”

Apple, Kavanaugh’s ruling concluded, was simply using rhetorical tricks to claim it wasn’t a direct seller — and those tricks could let other companies evade legitimate antitrust claims.

Apple responded saying: “Today’s decision means plaintiffs can proceed with their case in District court. We’re confident we will prevail when the facts are presented and that the App Store is not a monopoly by any metric.”

 

Last modified on 14 May 2019
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Read more about: