Reading over the opinion and the dissent (https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-Supreme-Court-ruling https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-S

Reading over the opinion and the dissent (https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-Supreme-Court-ruling https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-Supreme-Cour...), I think the crux for the majority is that the customers purchase the app through Apple. The Illinois Brick ruling prevents "pass-through" claims of damagers. So if I buy something from Company A, and they bought something from Company B required to make my item, and Company B is a monopoly, I cannot claim damages as a "pass-through." Company A has to claim damages. The majority's point is clear: "In this case, unlike in Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are not consumers at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain who are attempting to sue manufacturers at the top of the chain. There is no intermediary in the distribution chain between Apple and the consumer. The iPhone owners purchase apps directly from the retailer Apple, who is the alleged antitrust violator. The iPhone owners pay the alleged overcharge directly to Apple. The absence of an intermediary is dispositive. Under Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are direct purchasers from Apple and are proper plaintiffs to maintain this antitrust suit."