Law Kavanaugh sides with liberal justices against Apple, deals blow to tech giant in App Store challenge - Supreme Court says Apple customers can sue over App Store monopoly claims

mindlessobserver

kiwifarms.net
Kavenaugh sided with the liberal justices. Ruling was 5-4.


Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court on Monday, penning an opinion against Apple that ruled the tech company can be sued over high prices in their App Store.

The case, Apple v. Pepper, was brought by iPhone users who complained that the App Store is the only place where iPhone apps are available and that, as a result, Apple has a monopoly on “the iPhone apps aftermarket.” They claim prices are consequently high stemming from the charges Apple imposes on app developers.

Apple released a statement Monday afternoon saying they are "confident we will prevail when the facts are presented," adding that the App Store "is not a monopoly by any metric."

A district court decision had said that the iPhone users did not have standing to bring their antitrust claim because the developers -- not Apple -- are the ones selling the apps. Court precedent says that indirect purchasers who are at least two steps removed in a distribution chain cannot sue. Apple also claimed that because they don’t set the retail price of the apps on the store, iPhone users cannot sue them.

The Ninth Circuit, however, said that Apple is indeed the seller, through their App Store. Kavanaugh agreed, along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

“It is undisputed that the iPhone owners bought the apps directly from Apple,” Kavanaugh wrote. He also addressed Apple’s claim that they do not set app prices by pointing out that the company’s practice of charging app developers $99 per year plus 30 percent of sales indeed affects pricing.


“In the retail context, the price charged by a retailer to a consumer is often a result (at least in part) of the price charged by the manufacturer or supplier to the retailer, or of negotiations between the manufacturer or supplier and the retailer,” Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh's stance with the liberal wing of the court was striking. President Trump's second nominee to the high court faced fierce Democratic opposition during his confirmation process, over sexual misconduct allegations as well as his judicial philosophy.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's other pick, wrote the dissent for four conservative justices in the Apple case. The consumers' complaint against Apple is the kind of case earlier high court rulings said was not allowed under federal laws that prohibit unfair control of a market, Gorsuch wrote.

The court’s decision did not make any ruling on the merits of the case. It simply allowed for the lawsuit to go forward before a lower court.

The suit could force Apple to cut the commission it charges software developers. A judge could triple the compensation to consumers under antitrust law if Apple ultimately loses the suit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TerribleIdeas™

kiwifarms.net
Kavenaugh sided with the liberal justices. Ruling was 5-4.
BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS THE SECOND COMING OF THE ANTICHRIST AND HE WAS GOING TO MERCILESSLY RAPE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING AND LAUGH AS THE WORLD BURNED AND DANCE IN THE ASHES AND ORANGE MAN BAD WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH MOM STOP CALLING ME A LIMP-WRISTED, SOY-BLOATED FAGGOT

Yes, it's fucking sarcasm, you speds.
 

Sprig of Parsley

kiwifarms.net
BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS THE SECOND COMING OF THE ANTICHRIST AND HE WAS GOING TO MERCILESSLY RAPE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING AND LAUGH AS THE WORLD BURNED AND DANCE IN THE ASHES AND ORANGE MAN BAD WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH MOM STOP CALLING ME A LIMP-WRISTED, SOY-BLOATED FAGGOT

Yes, it's fucking sarcasm, you speds.
It's great too because with a fairly cursory check you can look at a lot of his rulings and come to the conclusion that he's very definitely not some hard-right Nazi boogeyman, but the outrage machine needs that fuel.
 

Sword Fighter Super

I hope the princess made lotsah spaghetti!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS THE SECOND COMING OF THE ANTICHRIST AND HE WAS GOING TO MERCILESSLY RAPE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING AND LAUGH AS THE WORLD BURNED AND DANCE IN THE ASHES AND ORANGE MAN BAD WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH MOM STOP CALLING ME A LIMP-WRISTED, SOY-BLOATED FAGGOT

Yes, it's fucking sarcasm, you speds.
Sar...casm?
What mean, this word? Why you like bad man?
 

TerribleIdeas™

kiwifarms.net
Sar...casm?
What mean, this word? Why you like bad man?
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MOM I DON'T WANT TO CALL YOUR LATEST BOYFRIEND DAD AND I'M TOTALLY DEMISEXUAL TRANSPOLYTREEKIN AND ORANGE MAN BAD!

On topic - Kavanaugh is a Constitutionalist, so he's going to be a literalist to a degree that makes the truly exceptional tards out there look boring. He's a way better choice than any of the absolutely speds HRC would have shoveled into the SCotUS, and a vastly better choice than 99% of the assholes that the bulk of the GOP would be happier having.
 

mindlessobserver

kiwifarms.net
Thread title is misleading. In fact its flat out wrong
Whats wrong with it? The gist of what I got from the article is that the Supreme Court ruled the App Store was a monopoly for the purposes of selling apps to Iphones. Being a Monopoly is not actually illegal. It has to violate the Trust Laws and be anti-competitive in nature.

Wasn't this ruling just that the case can go ahead, not a decision on the case?
Yes. From what I gathered Apple tried to argue that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Supreme Court ruled they did. In order to have standing there needs to be a cause.

Maybe I got suckered in by sensational headlines.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Koby_Fish

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
Whats wrong with it? The gist of what I got from the article is that the Supreme Court ruled the App Store was a monopoly for the purposes of selling apps to Iphones. Being a Monopoly is not actually illegal. It has to violate the Trust Laws and be anti-competitive in nature.



Yes. From what I gathered Apple tried to argue that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. Supreme Court ruled they did. In order to have standing there needs to be a cause.

Maybe I got suckered in by sensational headlines.
The only thing they ruled on is that they can be sued. Even if it is a monopoly thats not what they ruled on.

New title is great.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sword Fighter Super

Spasticus Autisticus

kiwifarms.net
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

We are on the Brave BAT program. Consider using Brave as your Browser. It's like Chrome but doesn't tell Google what you masturbate to.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino