Apple Scores Legal Victory as Judge Decertifies 2011 App Store Antitrust Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

Apple today scored a victory in a long-running antitrust lawsuit when the judge overseeing the case decertified it. The antitrust lawsuit was originally filed in 2011, accusing Apple of monopolizing the iPhone app ecosystem by refusing to allow customers to download apps outside of the App Store.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has been handling the case since 2012, but it did make its way through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court before being remanded back to a lower court. The case has dragged on because the plaintiffs have struggled to support their claims, demonstrate classwide harm, and provide a method for calculating the number of injured parties, and that's why it's now been decertified. Decertification means the case can no longer proceed as a class action lawsuit that represents all iPhone users who bought apps through the App Store. Instead, anyone who wants to sue Apple over the issue would need to file an individual lawsuit.

In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said that it was pleased with the court's decision.

We're pleased the Court recognized the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the alleged harm to consumers and decertified the class. We continue to invest significantly to make the App Store a safe and trusted place for users to discover apps and a great business opportunity for developers.

The plaintiffs tried several times for class action certification and failed until 2023, when the court accepted expert testimony that promised a way to determine injury and damages on a classwide basis. At that time, Rogers granted the lawsuit class action status, but warned the plaintiffs that they would need to follow through with a functional model for determining who was harmed by Apple's actions and counted as a class member.

The plaintiffs needed to match Apple's payor records to consumers to calculate the number of people harmed, but the expert hired to do so made multiple serious errors and the data was not able to be used. Apple filed to have the error ridden data dismissed and for decertification, and Rogers granted both.

Rogers said the expert that the plaintiffs used was "not qualified," his methods were "not reliable," and he "did not reliably apply his methods," so his testimony was not considered relevant. The plaintiffs failed to provide a methodology to match Apple ID accounts to consumers, and are not able to prove damages on a classwide basis.

The plaintiffs plan to appeal the decertification.

Article Link: Apple Scores Legal Victory as Judge Decertifies 2011 App Store Antitrust Lawsuit

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

who are the plaintiffs ? regular consumers ?

 

[germanbeer007]

good. maybe those who really want to install apps outside the App Store, instead of suing apple, maybe you should take the easier route and BUY AN ANDROID DEVICE.

good grief.

 

[justanotherdave]

There’s no way to show harm.

When Apple/Google dropped fees to 15% for small developers they kept App prices the same and pocketed the difference.

Their whole case resides on the ASSUMPTION that third party stores with lower fees would result in lower App prices for consumers.

 

[justanotherdave]

good. maybe those who really want to install apps outside the App Store, instead of suing apple, maybe you should take the easier route and BUY AN ANDROID DEVICE.

good grief.

Funny how they’re always telling us about the problems with the iPhone and how Android is superior but instead of buying an Android device they want to make the iPhone like Android instead.

Good grief is right.

 

[justanotherdave]

who are the plaintiffs ? regular consumers ?

Vocal minority who thinks they speak for all iPhone users.

That or proxies for companies like Epic & Spotify funding lawsuits to promote their own interests.

 

[MakaniKai]

good. maybe those who really want to install apps outside the App Store, instead of suing apple, maybe you should take the easier route and BUY AN ANDROID DEVICE.

good grief.

yes if there is one app you need but can’t get because of Apple deciding what is allowed on YOUR phone, you should just completely switch phones and operating systems and mess up your entire routine and your ability to use features like Continuity as a result. It’s so easy 🙄 /s

 

[platinumaqua]

good. maybe those who really want to install apps outside the App Store, instead of suing apple, maybe you should take the easier route and BUY AN ANDROID DEVICE.

good grief.

Google wants to certify all apps regardless whether it was delivered by the Play Store, so soon, even switching to Android is not going to make a difference.

 

[Ritsu]

yes if there is one app you need but can’t get because of Apple deciding what is allowed on YOUR phone, you should just completely switch phones and operating systems and mess up your entire routine and your ability to use features like Continuity as a result. It’s so easy 🙄 /s

In my opinon they should be able to make you use app store even though its your phone like Google has started to do as well.

 

[justanotherdave]

yes if there is one app you need but can’t get because of Apple deciding what is allowed on YOUR phone, you should just completely switch phones and operating systems and mess up your entire routine and your ability to use features like Continuity as a result. It’s so easy 🙄 /s

Funny how you didn’t provide a list of said Apps. Probably some niche use-cases nobody cares about but you want to pretend it’s the end of the world if you can’t use it.

 

[Homme]

Funny how they’re always telling us about the problems with the iPhone and how Android is superior but instead of buying an Android device they want to make the iPhone like Android instead.

Good grief is right.

the thing is the amount of “Android features” in an iPhone is just about right, but this isn’t one of them.

And even if the iPhone had this feature we all know Tim Epic sued Google and won vis a vis the Epic/Apple case only it is worse for Google because even with sideloading to circumvent the 30% fee you will still get sued so yeah that part of iPhone doesn’t need to go down the Android route. We have what we need for iPhone to have “Android features” the best example being USB-C

 

[Apple-achian]

Meanwhile Google is locking down Android/AOSP. But Android fans are focusing on frivolous suits against Apple.

 

[macfacts]

good. maybe those who really want to install apps outside the App Store, instead of suing apple, maybe you should take the easier route and BUY AN ANDROID DEVICE.

good grief.

as soon as apple stops trying to lock in users and gives a refund for all iOS apps bought

 

[germanbeer007]

yes if there is one app you need but can’t get because of Apple deciding what is allowed on YOUR phone

1. You bought the phone knowing the app wouldn't be available.
2. You bought the phone knowing you can't install your own OS.

Sorry, but it sounds like buyer's remorse which is not Apple's problem but more of a customer's refusal to do the most basic research before making a major purchase decision.

Do you buy a house and move in only to realize there is no subway access? I wouldn't.

 

[germanbeer007]

Google wants to certify all apps regardless whether it was delivered by the Play Store, so soon, even switching to Android is not going to make a difference.

You can install third party app stores.

The whole new developer verification is no different than Apple's notarization where Apple doesn't restrict epic/valve/EA/etc...from installing third party stores on the Mac unless the store is doing malicious things. Even steam distributed malware but Apple hasn't pulled Steam from Mac.

So what you're saying isn't really holding water.

 

[germanbeer007]

as soon as apple stops trying to lock in users and gives a refund for all iOS apps bought

you bought the iOS apps knowing the limitations of the platform. you don't deserve a refund for those apps.

 

[Chaos215bar2]

Funny how they’re always telling us about the problems with the iPhone and how Android is superior but instead of buying an Android device they want to make the iPhone like Android instead.

Good grief is right.

What an intentionally obtuse take.

What these people want isn't to make iPhone like Android — something which, by the way, is not really going to help much considering steps Google is taking to lock down its own store. What they want is Apple's software and hardware quality with the ability to use apps of their own choosing, just like everyone gets on macOS.

There's always a chorus extolling the harms people will face with an open app ecosystem, yet where are those supposed harms on macOS?

The problem is, how do you quantify the harms faced by users here? How do you quantify the harm of locking users into an ecosystem which doesn't even allow app upgrades, forcing developers who wish to make money into subscription models and predatory in-app purchases? Yes, these are things that began largely with Apple's ecosystem. They've done some work to mitigate this, but still never addressed the underlying deficiency.

How do you quantify the harms caused by locking developers into a model where Apple gets 30% of their profits? Something which, somehow, was never necessary on macOS.

That's the difficulty here. And yet so many are so quick to offer their hot take in support of a locked down ecosystem and what amounts to thinly veiled subscription-based hardware, with little other than Apple's clearly self-serving arguments as support.

Seriously. If opening up iOS software installation to third parties is such a problem, where is that problem causing harm to macOS users? Or, for that matter, Android users — while they still have the option? Seems to me that all the Android malware we hear about either comes via the Play store or in the form of manufacturer-installed bloat/adware.

 

[justanotherdave]

as soon as apple stops trying to lock in users and gives a refund for all iOS apps bought

Apple is supposed to refund people for Apps they bought & used? What kind of twisted logic is this?

 

[MakaniKai]

Funny how you didn’t provide a list of said Apps.

You are moving the goal post. You gave a generic argument and I gave a generic response. If you wanted specifics you should have asked for them.

 

[Chaos215bar2]

1. You bought the phone knowing the app wouldn't be available.
2. You bought the phone knowing you can't install your own OS.

Sorry, but it sounds like buyer's remorse which is not Apple's problem but more of a customer's refusal to do the most basic research before making a major purchase decision.

Do you buy a house and move in only to realize there is no subway access? I wouldn't.

And yet, in civilized communities, we advocate for public transit to the benefit of all.

That is the point of regulation and collective action. Because without these things, those with the means can and will lock people into arrangements which benefit them, leaving people the choice of bad or worse.

The fact that someone bought an iPhone doesn't mean they have to agree with every aspect of how the platform operates. The fact that someone bought an iPhone means they looked at the options, made a judgement call, and decided it offered the best compromise.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

There’s no way to show harm.

When Apple/Google dropped fees to 15% for small developers they kept App prices the same and pocketed the difference.

Their whole case resides on the ASSUMPTION that third party stores with lower fees would result in lower App prices for consumers.

I have an app in the iOS and Windows app stores. It's free for Windows users, but paid for iOS users, directly to re-coup the ~$300 in sales I need every year to break even.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

good. maybe those who really want to install apps outside the App Store, instead of suing apple, maybe you should take the easier route and BUY AN ANDROID DEVICE.

good grief.

Then I just pay via privacy instead of via ApplePay.

 

[justanotherdave]

What an intentionally obtuse take.

What these people want isn't to make iPhone like Android — something which, by the way, is not really going to help much considering steps Google is taking to lock down its own store. What they want is Apple's software and hardware quality with the ability to use apps of their own choosing, just like everyone gets on macOS.

There's always a wailing chorus extolling the harms people will face with an open app ecosystem, yet where are those supposed harms on macOS?

The problem is, how do you quantify the harms faced by users here? How do you quantify the harm of locking users into an ecosystem which doesn't even allow app upgrades, forcing developers who wish to make money into subscription models and predatory in-app purchases? Yes, these are things that began largely with Apple's ecosystem. They've done some work to mitigate this, but still never addressed the underlying deficiency.

How do you quantify the harms caused by locking developers into a model where Apple gets 30% of their profits? Something which, somehow, was never necessary on macOS.

That's the difficulty here. And yet so many are so quick to offer their hot take in support of a locked down ecosystem and what amounts to thinly veiled subscription-based hardware, with little other than Apple's clearly self-serving arguments as support.

Seriously. If opening up iOS software installation to third parties is such a problem, where is that problem causing harm to macOS users? Or, for that matter, Android users — while they still have the option? Seems to me that all the Android malware we hear about either comes via the Play store or in the form of manufacturer-installed bloat/adware.

It’s a take based on a sampling of posts here on MR (and not a minority).

 

[Chaos215bar2]

It’s a take based on a sampling of posts here on MR (and not a minority).

Macrumors is a site dedicated to hardcore Apple fans. Of course it skews in Apple's favor. It's frustrating to see people advocating for reduced options on hardware they own, falling mostly uncritically for Apple's claims, but not at all surprising.

Try looking at the response in a brand-agnostic forum that skews towards more technical users, who understand the real world implications, including security, privacy, and the economics of the App Store.

Personally, I'd love a viable alternative that offered Apple's quality without the locked down ecosystem, but the economics mean that any serious competitor to Apple and Google is simply not viable unless legal steps were taken to break up that duopoly. This lawsuit could have been one way to open up a crack in the current status quo.

Having two entrenched competitors with little reason to open up their ecosystems and every reason to lock them down harder (see: Google's recent steps towards controlling "sideloaded" app installation) helps no one.

Reading threads like this feels a little like being told we have the choice between Coke and Pepsi, and the fact that people ultimately go with one or the other means they must obviously be all in favor of their caffeinated, sweet, citrus-cinnamon flavored carbonated beverage of choice.

 

[ikramerica]

Funny how they’re always telling us about the problems with the iPhone and how Android is superior but instead of buying an Android device they want to make the iPhone like Android instead.

Good grief is right.

You literally have the choice of DOZENS of Android devices that run the dominant mobile OS. Apple is one manufacturer who runs a proprietary OS.

If you don’t want Apple’s proprietary OS, buy a less expensive or more expensive Android device.

I don’t want my iPhone to be an Android clone. I would be harmed by that.