Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 13, 2019 at 7:17 AM.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 against Apple in an anticompetitive case involving the App Store, allowing iPhone users to move forward with their class action lawsuit against the company, as first reported by CNBC.

    [​IMG]

    From the Supreme Court's ruling:
    The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by a group of iPhone users who believe Apple violates federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through its App Store, where it collects a 30 percent commission from all purchases, leading to inflated prices as developers pass on the cost of the commission to customers.

    In other words, the iPhone users believe that apps would be priced lower outside of the App Store, as Apple's 30 percent cut would not be baked in to prices.

    The lawsuit was initially dismissed in 2013 by a California district court due to errors in the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the case in 2017. Apple then appealed with the Supreme Court.

    From the start, Apple has argued that it doesn't set prices for paid apps, and that charging a 30 percent commission on the distribution of paid apps and in-app purchases does not violate antitrust laws in the United States. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Apple.

    Update: Apple has issued a statement (via John Packzowski) regarding the decision:
    The Supreme Court's full ruling is embedded ahead.

    Click here to read rest of article...

    Article Link: Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]
     
  2. Maclver macrumors 68020

    Maclver

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Location:
    36°07′53″N 95°56′14″W
    #2
    Will be interesting to see how this plays out....
     
  3. mikzn macrumors 65816

    mikzn

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2013
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #3
    I wish there was an alternate source for apps - non apple, I would buy all my apps there. This is defintely a monopoly and many a good developer has given up with all the rules and restrictions. I have a lot of apps on older iOS versions that were cool and then suddenly not available on the app store on the next version of iOS
     
  4. johnrlaporta macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Location:
    Anesthesiologist
    #4
    How ridiculous. If they stopped charging the 30%, the companies would just keep the price the same and pocket the 30% Who wouldn't?
     
  5. mozumder macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    #5
    These 5-4 decisions set precedent. We really need the Supreme Court to only set precedent unanimously. Having set precedent on a simple majority is too close and becomes too political.
     
  6. Morgenland macrumors 6502a

    Morgenland

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Europe
    #6
    That court seems to be ridiculous and unrealistic.
     
  7. Da_Hood macrumors newbie

    Da_Hood

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Location:
    Australia
    #7
    Surprised they got this far given how little consumer protection afforded to US citizens
     
  8. mozumder macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    #8
    That only happens in apps with monopoly power, which is rare. (not the app-store monopoly).
     
  9. Victor Mortimer macrumors regular

    Victor Mortimer

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2016
    #9
    Good. It IS a monopoly.

    As I've said repeatedly, it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone. I should have the choice to install apps from whatever source I desire, and I shouldn't have to go through ridiculous machinations with Xcode every week to do it.
     
  10. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #10
    So did Kavanaugh side with the liberals on the court?
     
  11. iFan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    #11
    Just read the opinion. Not as scary as the headlines sound.
    It says:
    "At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws."

    Aka - they are legally allowed to sue, but who knows how the litigation will do.
    --- Post Merged, May 13, 2019 at 7:24 AM ---
    Yes. Kavanaugh plus liberals made this ruling.
     
  12. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #12
    It’s not though. You’re basically buying a license to software that comes with an end user license agreement (EULA) which dictates what can and can’t be done with the software. It’s not a monopoly because one can easily buy something else.
     
  13. Maclver macrumors 68020

    Maclver

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Location:
    36°07′53″N 95°56′14″W
    #13
    Thanks for this.... not as dire as the article is titled!
     
  14. Romeo_Nightfall macrumors 6502

    Romeo_Nightfall

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2018
    Location:
    Vienna
    #14
    Ridiculous, your post shows complete lack of understanding from a society
     
  15. iFan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    #15
    Read past the headline before you reply - the Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of whether you should be allowed to download whatever you want. They were ruling on whether there was a right to sue. 5-4 said lawsuits could proceed, but did not support or review their merits.
     
  16. timeconsumer macrumors 68000

    timeconsumer

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Portland
    #16
    The App Store is a monopoly as that’s the only way developers can get their apps out to people. The argument can be made that the cost covers the hosting/bandwidth and payment processing. But Apple doesn’t allow developers to host their own apps say on their websites to allow people to buy/install outside of the App Store.

    Whether this will get anywhere, who knows.
     
  17. DocMultimedia macrumors 6502a

    DocMultimedia

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    #17
    This won't be good for Apple. Or the consumer. If it ends up against Apple down the road.
     
  18. Victor Mortimer macrumors regular

    Victor Mortimer

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2016
    #18
    This isn't really about the 30%. Apple can charge whatever they want at their store. But they should NOT be allowed to have the only store. If I want to write an app for the iPhone, I should have the choice to put it in Apple's store, some other store, or sell/give it away directly from my own web site.
     
  19. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #19
    So basically the Supreme Court isn’t saying Apple is a monopoly but that their argument about consumers not being direct purchases from Apple is bogus.
     
  20. sdz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 28, 2014
    Location:
    Europe/Germany
    #20
    Only in an "incomplete" market. I think it won't happen.
     
  21. Romeo_Nightfall macrumors 6502

    Romeo_Nightfall

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2018
    Location:
    Vienna
    #21
    No You can’t!
    Because apple has a walled garden too. If You have a watch?
     
  22. jagolden macrumors 6502a

    jagolden

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    #22
    So silly. Apps are generally so inexpensive what’s the point?
    As others note, the app maker will not lower the price but keep it the same and simply keep more product.
    It may be onerous at times, but I’d rather trust an app from the App Store than ones downloaded from any old site/publisher. Sure, let’s just load up everything we find, end up in the toilet, and then blame Apple when your phone/pad/computer goes bonkers!
    Geesh!
     
  23. cardfan macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    #23
    Good news for consumers. Apple shouldn’t get to decide what apps I can install. That was the reason to jailbreak in the past.
     
  24. macjoshua macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #24
    They can always buy an Android phone if they want a more open and potentially insecure way of getting apps.
     
  25. TimFL1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Location:
    Germany
    #25
    It wont. This will go nowhere, platform holders take cuts everywhere (console stores, Steam, Epic Store, literally any marketplace on earth does so to finance the delivery of said content).
    30% is the average fee, it‘s ugly but everyone does it.

    I, for one, am against having other places than the App Store for app distribution. One unified place to get your apps (securely and up-to-date) from beats out the mess you find on Android.
     

Share This Page