Apple App Store antitrust complaint dismissed on procedural grounds by U.S. judge

“Apple Inc. won dismissal on procedural grounds of a lawsuit claiming the company maintains a monopoly over iPhone applications. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, ruled today that the plaintiffs weren’t in a legal position to bring the suit as they hadn’t bought the applications at issue in the case. The complaint can still be amended and refiled, Gonzalez said,” Joel Rosenblatt reports for Bloomberg. “Alexander Schmidt, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview that he’ll have ‘no difficulty’ refiling the case to meet the judge’s requirements.”

MacDailyNews Take: Half-assed fuckery.

Rosenblatt reports, “The plaintiffs failed to prove ‘collective allegations that they have been deprived of lower cost alternatives, paid higher prices for Apple-approved applications, or had their iPhones disabled or destroyed,’ Gonzalez wrote. ‘At a minimum, plaintiffs must allege facts showing that each named plaintiff has personally suffered an injury-in-fact based on Apple’s alleged conduct.’ In a suit originally filed in 2011, the same consumers argued Cupertino, California-based Apple has built a monopoly for iPhone applications because they’re only for sale at Apple’s App Store.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: 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.


  1. “Alexander Schmidt, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview that he’ll have ‘no difficulty’ refiling the case to meet the judge’s requirements.”

    What a witch-hunt.

    1. It still bothers me though.

      It’s a TON of tax-payer money funding this entire thing just so these mouth-breathers can make a name for themselves in addition to whatever money they can take in fines against Apple.

      Worst-case scenario, Apple has to allow other developers the right to make their own app stores.

      So a consumer is going to hypothetically install 1-4 other app stores and those apps won’t be held up to the standards that Apple requires of it’s own developers?

      Those app stores will have to will have to clear out malware as quickly as Apple does?

      Those app store will have make sure they’re policed so apps aren’t being sold to children that could run amok with expensive purchases?

      These app stores are going to sell apps for cheaper than the $.99-$4.99 price range how?

      1. Somehow I don’t think an app store for a single brand of phone is monopolistic, since it leaves consumers able to buy any other brand they want if they don’t like the app store.

        If they do want that phone brand, they can jailbreak it and load any app they want.

  2. If iOS were like android and available on devices made by anyone who want make it, they would have a point, but when you buy an iOS device you know what you getting in to. This is whats wrong with the American law system, failed attempts at silly lawsuits should be a lot more expensive or have some sort of extreme deterrent. Suing companies seems to a hobby for some.

  3. It’s saddening to see both MacDailyNews and others freely and calously throw profanity out for underage readers to ingest without much thought at all to a greater issue affecting our post SJ era.

    There was a point made yesterday in a comment that was concerning the impact of the supposed new Apple with a gay fromt man.

    After I posted a financially focused and carefully worded comment in mild support of the rather crass comment … NO one responded.

    Interesting indeed.

    China, Korea, and other state or corporate challengers to Apple and all of us users and investors may not be the only issue that should cause angst and our passionate outcry for a change.

    The cool factor … The “currency” that the new Ashton version of SJ mentions that Apple has enjoyed is fading not only because of ripped off profucts from competitors, but may be due to in house issues that are more obvious, but undesirable to acknowledge and remedy.

    This issue raised yesterday is being avoided by and large on these forums because of hypersensitivity to being given a derogatory label because you present a position in opposotion to the “new normal” and “now socially acceptable” devience from the nature order.

    The so called “Free sex 1960′s” as it is sometimes referred to, led to unprecedented teen and unwed pregnancies, single parent homes, abortion explosion, related and yes provable statistical connects with incarceration rates, and the now prevalent increased acceptance of more and more traditionally socially unacceptable “behaviors.”

    Try to consider this somewhat silly but real and illustrative picture.

    Have you ever seen a male cat try to hold down and “mount” a smaller male cat?

    If you were to see that, would you think it wrong because it appeared to be forceable or just because it was aberrant?

    Would you maybe tell the owner their cat was “sick” because that isn’t a natural, acceptable behavior?

    Many agree that Apple is doing very well considering the major changes beimg made going into this new era with Steve Jobs.

    And there are many places for the many capable faces who have built the Apple empire.

    The obvious point of the cat analogy is that few would want that cat on their lap or over to their house to play with their male cat!

    And few of us would put that cat out front as the symbol, the “face” that represents their family.

    “That cat” may catch more mice and for that they would be very thankful.

    But since Apple has worn out all of the practical “cat names” … let’s find a California Surfer Dude with charisma and charm to stand out front and sell them Apples to the world!

    Maybe a passionate young “Captain Kirk” type 😉

    1. “This issue raised yesterday is being avoided by and large on these forums because of hypersensitivity to being given a derogatory label because…” hmm, I know there’s a rack of baby-backs in the freezer, tho I haven’t been to the Chinese buffet in a while. Definitely: Chinese buffet.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.