• Home
  • News
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Internet of Things
  • Open Source
  • Hardware
  • Software
  • Security
  • Whitepapers
  • Industry Voice
  • Data Strategy Spotlight
  • Newsletters
  • Whitepapers
    • Inqlogo 120x194
      Five things you should look for in choosing a Testing provider

      Choosing a Testing Partner can be complex.  So what do you look for?  This guide offers insight into the qualities you must look for in choosing a Testing provider.  Download now to learn more.

      Download
      Inqlogo 120x194
      Your questions answered: How to protect your data in the cloud

      The number of successful cyberattacks per year per company has increased by 46% over the last four years. But what really needs to be considered when exploring a solution? What questions need to be asked? Download to find out...

      Download
      Find whitepapers
      Search by title or subject area
      View all whitepapers
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • Newsletters
    • Facebook
  • Newsletter
  • Industry Voice
  • Data Strategy Spotlight
The Inquirer
The Inquirer
  • Home
  • News
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Internet of Things
  • Open Source
  • Hardware
  • Software
  • Security
  • Trending
  • General election
  • Huawei sues FCC
  • Xerox vs HP
  • Galaxy S11
  • McAfee 2020
The Inquirer
  • Friction

Supreme Court to hear Apple's appeal in App Store monopoly case

Seven-year-old Apple vs Pepper battle heads back to court

US Supreme Court to hear Apple's appeal in App Store monopoly case
US Supreme Court to hear Apple's appeal in App Store monopoly case
  • Carly Page
  • Carly Page
  • @CarlyPage_
  • 26 November 2018
  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  •  
  •  
  • Send to  
0 Comments

THE US SUPREME COURT will this week hear Apple's appeal to throw out a seven-year-old antitrust case related to the iOS App Store.

As reported by Reuters, Apple is appealing a lower court decision that revived the proposed consumer class-action lawsuit - known - known as Apple vs Pepper -  citing a 1977 Supreme Court ruling as part of its defence

In Apple's view, siding with the consumers who filed the lawsuit would "threaten the burgeoning field of e-commerce", and it argues that  

The case dates back to 2011 when several iPhone buyers, including lead plaintiff Robert Pepper (not Robot Pepper), filed a lawsuit claiming that Apple "illegally monopolized the distribution of iPhone apps, and that the commissions charged to app developers inflate the prices consumers ultimately pay for apps."

The plaintiffs argued that, although developers set the prices of their apps, by charging them a 30 per cent commission on each purchase, and by allowing iOS apps only to be sold through its App Store, Apple has inflated the price of apps for consumers. 

A court initially ruled in favour of Apple, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring the case because they are not charged the commission.

An appeals court revived the case in January 2017, and the Supreme Court in June said it would take up Apple's claim that only app developers and not consumers have legal ground to bring such an antitrust suit. 

"This is a critical question for antitrust law in the era of electronic commerce," Apple said at the time. "The threshold issue is who may seek damages based on allegedly anticompetitive conduct by Apple that allows it to charge excessive commissions on apps distribution: the app developers, the plaintiff consumers, or both?"

Apple, supported by the Trump administration, argues that the plaintiffs in the case don't have the right to sue under current antitrust laws in the US.

"The Ninth Circuit is home to a disproportionate share of the nation's e-commerce companies, and its erroneous decision creates uncertainty and a lack of uniformity about the proper application of Section 4 (awarding treble damages based on the antitrust law) to this increasingly common business model," it said. 

It's not just consumers who have a problem with the iOS App Store, as Spotify has also hit out at Apple's "anti-competitive" practices, in particular the 30 'Apple Tax' it levies on developers. µ

Further reading

  • Phones
Apple might restart iPhone X production in 'certain markets'
  • 22 Nov 2018
  • Graphics
Apple's MacBook Pro with Radeon Pro Vega 20 graphics gets benchmarked
  • 22 Nov 2018
  • Developer
Apple tipped to release a Chromecast-style TV dongle
  • 22 Nov 2018
  • Developer
Apple, Google and Uber should be forced to share mapping data, says ODI
  • 21 Nov 2018
  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  •  
  •  
  • Send to  
  • Topics
  • Friction
  • Apple
  • app store
  • Friction
  • developer

INQ Latest

Comet Lake-S leaks keep hitting earth
Intel Comet Lake-S leak teases AMD-chasing six-core Core i5-10600

Hype for HyperThreading

  • Chips
  • 13 December 2019
Apple's parental controls in iOS 13.3 can be easily bypassed
Apple's parental controls in iOS 13.3 can be easily bypassed

Hey kids, leave them iPhones alone

  • Software
  • 13 December 2019
Opera GX brings gaming-led browsing to macOS
Opera GX brings gaming-led browsing to macOS

The Mac lady sings

  • Software
  • 13 December 2019
Google Assistant gets 'Interpreter Mode' on iOS and Android
Google Assistant gets 'Interpreter Mode' on iOS and Android

Babel in yo ear

  • Software
  • 13 December 2019
Back to Top

Most read

Apple's iPhone 12 won't see a significant price increase, claims Kuo
Apple's iPhone 12 won't see a significant price increase, claims analyst
FTC might order Facebook to stop integrating Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp
FTC might order Facebook to stop merger of Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp
Comet Lake-S leaks keep hitting earth
Intel Comet Lake-S leak teases AMD-chasing six-core Core i5-10600
Windows 7 goes end-of-life in a month
Windows 7 goes end-of-life in a month
Galaxy S11 specs, release date and price: In-the-wild images show chunky camera hump
Galaxy S11 specs, release date and price: In-the-wild images show chunky camera hump
  • Contact
  • Marketing solutions
  • Enterprise IT Events
  • Incisive Media
  • Terms & conditions
  • Policies
  • Careers
  • Twitter
  • Newsletters
  • Facebook

© Incisive Business Media (IP) Limited, Published by Incisive Business Media Limited, New London House, 172 Drury Lane, London WC2B 5QR, registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 09177174 & 09178013

Digital publisher of the year
Digital publisher of the year 2010, 2013, 2016 & 2017