“The lawsuit accuses Apple of monopolizing the app market so it can charge excessive commissions of 30 percent,” Stohr reports. “Apple, backed by the Trump administration, says it can’t be sued because the commission is levied on the app developers, not the purchasers who are suing.”
“A victory for Apple could insulate companies that run online marketplaces and interact with consumers on behalf of third-party sellers,” Stohr reports. “‘This is a critical question for antitrust law in the era of electronic commerce,’ Apple argued… The court will hear arguments and rule in the nine-month term that starts in October. The case is Apple v. Pepper, 17-204.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote in August 2013:
First: One would assume that a large corporation such as Apple would have had competent legal advice when they set up their App Store, in order that it be set up in legal fashion.
Second: On every iPhone, iPod touch, iPad, and iPad mini box, the potential buyer is informed of requirements, including “iTunes X.x or later required for some features” and also that an “iTunes Store account” is required. The plaintiffs were informed of the requirements prior to purchase. If the plaintiffs didn’t like the terms that came along with Apple devices, they should have opted for a pretend iPhone from any one of a dime-a-dozen handset assemblers. Then they could blissfully infest their fake iPhones with malware from a variety of sources.
Third: Apple doesn’t set the prices for paid apps.
Fourth: The amount by which Apple Inc. has driven down software prices across the board, on every major computing platform, makes legal actions such as this eminently laughable.
US DOJ sides with Apple over App Store antitrust allegations in Supreme Court brief – May 10, 2018
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revives antitrust lawsuit against Apple – January 13, 2017
Apple App Store antitrust complaint dismissed on procedural grounds by U.S. judge – August 16, 2013