ShareThis Page
Supreme Court rules against Apple, allowing lawsuit targeting App Store to proceed | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Supreme Court rules against Apple, allowing lawsuit targeting App Store to proceed

The Washington Post
1150718_web1_940986-ebc840d13ea2419ea6344141e83d9818
AP
In this June 13, 2016 file photo, the Apple logo is shown on a screen at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, in San Francisco.

Apple suffered a significant defeat at the Supreme Court on Monday, when the justices ruled that consumers could forge ahead with a lawsuit against the iPhone giant over the way it manages its App Store.

The 5-4 decision could spell serious repercussions for one of Apple’s most lucrative lines of business, and open the door for similar legal action targeting other tech giants in Silicon Valley.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the majority.

At the heart of the case is Apple’s handling of iPhone and iPad apps created by third-party developers and made available on its heavily curated App Store. Apple long has taken a commission on every paid app sold through this portal, rankling some developers that essentially see it as a tax.

The policy led iPhone owners to band together in 2011 with a class-action lawsuit, led by plaintiff Robert Pepper, who argued that consumers ultimately felt the brunt of Apple’s policies because developers raised the prices of their apps. These consumers brought their case under federal antitrust laws, arguing that Apple’s practices made it a monopoly.

In response, Apple pointed to decades-old Supreme Court precedent that found only the “direct purchasers” of a service are eligible to bring such an antitrust lawsuit in the first place. The iPhone giant said it only acted as the intermediary, providing a storefront where consumers found and purchased the apps they later installed on their phones.

An organization representing other tech giants, including Amazon, Facebook and Google, filed legal briefs in Apple’s defense, telling the Supreme Court that a decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed would put “these platform services… under threat.”

Some of the justices initially seemed skeptical of Apple’s claims. During oral arguments last year, conservative Justice Samuel Alito questioned if the precedent that Apple cited currently “stands up” in the digital ecosystem.

“From my perspective, I’ve just engaged in a one-step transaction with Apple,” said liberal Justice Elena Kagan at one point during the proceedings.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.