U.S. Supreme Court’s business-friendly reputation takes a hit

Andrew Chung for Reuters:

The U.S. Supreme Court in its term that concludes this week was not quite as business friendly as it has been in recent years, with President Donald Trump’s appointee Brett Kavanaugh writing a pivotal one of the batch of rulings that defied corporate interests.

Overall, the court’s rulings helped the business community more than they hurt, a regular feature under conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. But despite a 5-4 conservative majority, the court also signaled during its 2018-2019 term that there are limits to what business can expect.

Kavanaugh, a conservative known for his pro-business rulings in his prior role as a federal appeals court judge, wrote the most high-profile business-related decision of the term. He joined the court’s four liberal justices in a 5-4 ruling in May that let a class action lawsuit proceed against Apple Inc in which consumers accused the technology company of violating antitrust law by monopolizing the market for iPhone applications through its App Store.

Apple had been backed by Trump’s administration in the case.

MacDailyNews Take: In Apple v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead to an antitrust lawsuit accusing Apple of forcing consumers to overpay for iPhone software applications. They did not hold Apple liable on the merits of the lawsuit.

The amount by which Apple Inc. has driven down software prices across the board, on every major computing platform, makes this lawsuit laughable.

Basically, the U.S. Supreme Court simply opened the door for a flawed App Store lawsuit that Apple will likely win.

2 Comments

  1. MDN: “…flawed App Store lawsuit that Apple will likely win.”

    MDN, have you been paying attention to the success rate (or actually the lack thereof) of Apple’s legal team? Apple’s legal team has not had a high profile, clear win since the Franklin case well over 30 years ago.

  2. No court is supposed to be biased towards business. They are supposed to judge the law as written. Even if that ruling comes between a businessman and a quick buck.

    This will come as shocking news to those who feel it appropriate to add a nominating president’s name to describe a judge, despite the fact that it is the Senate who that votes on confirmation. A senate now so blatantly corrupt that one of the questions asked to the latest low-bar appointee was “I have to know, why do you use a Sharpie?”.

Add Your Feedback

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