3 ms·

It's not really clear from the article, but the prize here doesn't appear to be forcing Apple to pay hundreds of millions of dollars of penalties. (The court di

by apo 7y ago

It's not really clear from the article, but the prize here doesn't appear to be forcing Apple to pay hundreds of millions of dollars of penalties. (The court didn't even award penalties, but merely cleared the way for end-users to sue Apple under anti-trust regulations.) The real prize is forcing Apple to allow users to install software from any source: > Apple Inc. v. Robert Pepper is the latest salvo in a legal fight over Apple’s iOS App Store. A group of iPhone buyers are claiming that Apple’s locked-down ecosystem artificially inflates the prices of apps because all developers must go through a single store that takes a cut of their revenue. The buyers argue that Apple has established an unlawful monopoly over iOS apps, and they’re asking the courts to make Apple allow third-party iOS apps, in addition to repaying every iOS user it’s overcharged in the past. https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-ap... By extension, any company maintaining a walled garden could be sued for anti-trust violations by end users. That hasn't been possible until now due to a previous Supreme Court ruling called "Illinois Brick": > Arguing for Apple, lawyer Daniel Wall told the justices that the iPhone users’ claim is exactly the kind of claim that is prohibited under the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which held that only consumers who are direct purchasers of a product can bring a lawsuit seeking the triple damages available for violations of federal antitrust laws: Here, Wall said, the only theory of damages in the case is that Apple charges app developers a 30-percent commission, which in turn causes the developers to increase the prices that consumers pay for apps. Therefore, Wall argued, it is the app developers, not the iPhone users, who are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-justices-poised-to-allow-antitrust-dispute-against-apple-over-apps-to-go-forward/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-justice...

droithomme 7y ago
Yes, the people saying this is no big deal I think have failed to notice that SCOTUS just overturned a major previous SCOTUS decision that has stood for over 40 years and which is going to have a massive influence on a large category of class action lawsuits in the future. That this is understood to be an important decision is verified by the stock market response which was to immediately go into freefall. The reaction was swift and not anticipated in advance by market uncertainty because this decision was a huge surprise since no one thought they had the votes, the assumption being that conservative Kavanaugh would side with the conservative majority on issues of unquestioned corporate power. This may be an indicator that in many other cases involving corporations there exists a SCOTUS majority that will be overturning other past decisions and in general not be automatically deferential to business interests.

by apo 7y ago

droithomme 7y ago

Yes, the people saying this is no big deal I think have failed to notice that SCOTUS just overturned a major previous SCOTUS decision that has stood for over 40 years and which is going to have a massive influence on a large category of class action lawsuits in the future. That this is understood to be an important decision is verified by the stock market response which was to immediately go into freefall. The reaction was swift and not anticipated in advance by market uncertainty because this decision was a huge surprise since no one thought they had the votes, the assumption being that conservative Kavanaugh would side with the conservative majority on issues of unquestioned corporate power. This may be an indicator that in many other cases involving corporations there exists a SCOTUS majority that will be overturning other past decisions and in general not be automatically deferential to business interests.