Just in:
Liverpool FC continues international growth with first official retail partnership in South Korea // UN Commends Vietnam’s Progress on Climate Goals // Andertoons by Mark Anderson for Fri, 26 Apr 2024 // Oman Seeks Growth Through Strategic Economic Alliances // Heavy Rainfall Disrupts UAE Construction Boom // TPBank and Backbase Clinch ‘Best Omni-Channel Digital CX Solution’ at the Digital CX Awards 2024 // Forward Fashion’s Artelli Presents: Nobuyoshi Araki’s “Paradise” Starting from April 27th, at K11 MUSEA // Emirates to Embrace Electric Seaglider Travel // Galaxy Macau’s Sakura Cultural Festival Kicked off in Splendor // PolyU forms global partnership with ZEISS Vision Care to expand impact and accelerate market penetration of patented myopia control technology // Supreme Court dismisses pleas for 100% VVPAT verification // Winner of Hong Kong’s Flagship Global Elevator Pitch Competition Crowned // NetApp’s 2024 Cloud Complexity Report Reveals AI Disrupt or Die Era Unfolding Globally // Election Commission Of India Degrades Itself To Modi’s Own Commission // AVPN Charts Path Forward at 2024 Global Conference // CapBridge Shares Insights on the Recent Launch of Digital Asset ETFs in Hong Kong // Saudi Arabia on Verge of Sending First Delegate to Miss Universe // ByteDance Eyes US Shutdown for TikTok // Ministry of Agriculture Supports Taiwanese Tea’s Entry into Singapore Market to Boost Global Presence // DIFC Courts Cement Role as Top English Dispute Resolution Choice //

US appeals court reopens lawsuit against Apple for alleged App Store monopoly

app store

A US appeals court ruled Thursday that a group of iPhone owners can proceed with a class action lawsuit against Apple, which claims the Cupertino company has attempted to monopolize the market for iPhone apps.

The ruling, from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, re-opens allegations first brought to court in late 2011. The plaintiffs argued Apple, which only allows iPhone users to purchase apps through its App Store, created an anticompetitive marketplace for apps.

ADVERTISEMENT

A district court threw out the case, arguing the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. The case cites the 1977 Supreme Court Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which limited who can sue for antitrust damages. The general rule is that only “the overcharged direct purchaser, and not others in the chain of manufacture or distribution” has standing.

“The question before us is whether Plaintiffs purchased their iPhone apps directly from the app developers, or directly from Apple,” Judge William A. Fletcher wrote in the Appeals Court ruling issued Thursday. “Stated otherwise, the question is whether Apple is a manufacturer or producer, or whether it is a distributor. Under [legal precedent], if Apple is a manufacturer or producer from whom Plaintiffs purchased indirectly, Plaintiffs do not have standing. But if Apple is a distributor from whom Plaintiffs purchased directly, Plaintiffs do have standing.”

Apple argued that consumers purchase apps indirectly through Apple. It compared its business to the owner of a shopping mall that “leases physical space to various stores.” In other words, if the App Store is like a mall, app distributors are like stores that sell their goods directly to consumers.

Fletcher, however, wrote that Apple’s analogy is “unconvincing.”

“In the case before us, third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their own ‘stores,” he wrote. “Indeed, part of the anti-competitive behavior alleged by Plaintiffs is that, far from allowing iPhone app developers to sell through their own ‘stores,’ Apple specifically forbids them to do so, instead requiring them to sell iPhone apps only through Apple’s App Store.”

(via PCMag)

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT