3 ms·
> To simplify it as much as possible, the Beverage vs Apple case establishes a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal governmen
by supermatt 2y ago
> To simplify it as much as possible, the Beverage vs Apple case establishes a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal government. So, the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair.
That is nonsense. A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.
- vinay427 2y agoIANAL so this specific case notwithstanding, that sounds like a gross overgeneralization of the Supremacy Clause, which at least in interpretation is largely constrained to the powers that the Constitution gives the federal government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
- abduhl 2y agoThis has not been true since the mid-1900s. Federal courts considering claims based on state law are bound by state court precedent. Even the US Supreme Court.
- supermatt 2y agoAntitrust law is a federal issue.
- abduhl 2y agoApple prevailed with respect to the federal antitrust claims in Epic v Apple. Apple lost on the California antitrust claim, a California issue. California courts are the authority on California issues.
- supermatt 2y agoAs per FTC v. Phoebe Putney, unless the californian policy is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed" the injunction should be trumped by federal law. Based on the beverage ruling alone it would seem that there is no such policy. I don't particularly feel like debating this as I am not familiar with the case - i am simply pointing out the error I quoted as given in the article.
- abduhl 2y agoI’ll leave this conversation now. You fundamentally do not understand the procedural posture of this case because if you did you would understand that there is no federal law at issue here. This injunction is based on a federal court’s interpretation of state law that has since been completely rejected by the relevant state’s courts. You seem to lack the necessary legal education to even discuss the legal arguments being advanced.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- supermatt 2y agoAs I said, i am not familiar with the case, just pointing out the issue with the article. Edit: Given your stealth edit, I would suggest you check your attitude rather than calling others education into question.