Skip to Main Content
Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP
  • Our Firm
    • Who We Serve
      • Shareholders
      • Whistleblowers
      • Consumers
      • Businesses
      • Government Entities
    • Our Professionals
    • Working with Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP
    • Locations
    • News
    • Careers
    • Report Your Concern
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Antitrust Litigation
    • Business & Commercial Litigation
    • Securities & Corporate Governance
    • Healthcare Litigation
    • Consumer Protection
    • Whistle Blower False Claims Litigation
    • Government Representation
    • Employment Litigation
  • Cases
    • Antitrust Litigation Cases
    • Business & Commercial Litigation Cases
    • Consumer Protection Cases
    • Employment Litigation Cases
    • Government Representation Cases
    • Healthcare Litigation Cases
    • Mass Tort Litigation Cases
    • Securities & Corporate Governance Cases
    • Whistle Blower False Claims Cases
  • Investigations
    • Similac Toxic Infant Formula Lawsuit
    • Kid’s Castle Biometric Privacy Lawsuit
    • Contaminated Baby Food Lawsuit
    • Fatal Sportmix Pet Food Recall Class Action Lawsuit
    • Claire’s Data Breach Lawsuit
    • Insurance Denial for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment
    • Perpetual Sales Litigation
    • Railroad Price-Fixing Lawsuit
    • Medicare Advantage Fraud Litigation
    • Biometric Fingerprinting Litigation
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
See all blog posts
12.11.2018

Apple App Store Antitrust Case Could Have Major Impact on Future Litigation

By Brian Lynch
In The News, For Consumers

Apple is at the center of an app store antitrust lawsuit

As one of the biggest companies in the world, Apple has seemingly been a lightning rod for legal disputes. The company has faced multiple lawsuits for allegedly slowing down older devices, infringing on patents, and releasing MacBooks with defective keyboards, just to name a few. But it’s the Apple app store antitrust lawsuit that could have a major impact, not just for Apple, but for future antitrust cases.

The case in question is Apple v. Pepper, a decade-long case that alleges Apple maintains a monopoly on its app store that leads to higher prices due to the company’s 30 percent cut on all sales. Plaintiffs allege that because Apple users have no alternative sources for purchasing and installing apps (unlike Google’s Android operating system, which allows the installation of third-party app stores like Amazon) Apple’s market dominance drives up app prices.

The case was initially dismissed in 2013 after a California federal court cited Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, a pivotal 1977 Supreme Court case that held that indirect purchasers had no standing to sue for antitrust violations over raised prices. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision in 2017, allowing the case to move forward.

On Apple’s petition, the Supreme Court has moved to review the case and seems skeptical of Apple’s defense that the company merely acts as a distributor for third-party sellers and cannot be sued under the precedent set by Illinois Brick.

“That was a case of a vertical monopoly,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “This is not quite like that. This is dramatically different. This is a closed loop.”

Justice Elena Kagan noted that Apple’s app store appears to operate as a traditional merchant/purchaser transaction from the consumer’s perspective.

“I go to Apple’s App Store. I pay Apple directly with the credit card information that I’ve supplied to Apple. From my perspective, I’ve just engaged in a one-step transaction with Apple.”

Regardless of the outcome, Apple v. Pepper could have major implications on future litigation. Several states have already urged the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling on Illinois Brick, which would dramatically expand the limits on who can pursue damages under federal antitrust law. Should the Supreme Court rule against Apple, it could have a dramatic impact on the company’s digital marketplace, from paying damages to consumers to reworking their entire distribution model. It could even open the door for other tech companies operating digital marketplaces to face similar legal challenges.

Needless to say, this will be an interesting case to follow in the coming year.

Share

No Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Receive News Updates

Get the latest from Wexler Wallace LLP & stay informed.

Categories

  • Media Appearances
  • Uncategorized
  • Columns
    • Guest Post
    • Ken Wexler
    • Ed Wallace
  • Practice Areas
    • Consumer Protection
    • Mass Tort Litigation
    • Business & Commercial Litigation
    • Healthcare Litigation
    • Employment Litigation
  • Cases
  • Hall Of Shame
    • Villain Of The Week
  • In The News
    • Public Victories
  • Featured Investigations
  • The Firm
    • News releases
    • Around The World
    • Our Professionals
    • Chicago
  • You Should Know
    • For Investors
    • For Businesses
    • For Consumers
  • Featured Cases
  • awards
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Image

311 S. Wacker Drive,
Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
P_312.346.2222
F_312.346.0022

  • Our Firm
  • Practice Areas
  • Cases
  • Investigations
  • Newsroom
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap
  • Privacy Statement
  • Legal Disclaimer

2022 © Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP