Two competing groups of law firms are petitioning a U.S. judge to appoint them as leaders of what they hope will potentially become lucrative consumer class action lawsuits accusing Apple of monopolizing the smartphone market.
The opposing coalitions of plaintiffs lawyers on Thursday made their pitches to U.S. District Judge Julien Neals in New Jersey, who is presiding over private antitrust cases that were filed against Apple after the U.S. Justice Department and a coalition of states sued the iPhone maker in March.
The firms seeking to represent consumers who bought iPhones from Apple include Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Girard Sharp, Seeger Weiss and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello on one side, with Hausfeld and Susman Godfrey on the other.
At stake is the chance to win an outsized share of legal fees stemming from any settlement of judgment in the consolidated case, which could be worth billions of dollars if it succeeds.
The civil cases mirror the Justice Department’s complaint, which accused Apple of violating antitrust law by using contractual restrictions to force developers to play by its rules. The lawsuits allege Apple has set up roadblocks diminishing consumer choice for third-party services.
Cupertino, California-based Apple has denied the government’s claims and asked the court to throw them out. Apple has not responded yet in the consumer cases.
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
MacDailyNews Note: In a March statement to the media, Apple said of the U.S. DOJ’s lawsuit:
At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love—designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people’s privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users. This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple — where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology. We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.
Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
And we should all expect Apple to lose this case due to its nearly worthless legal team just like Apple has lost nearly every major case since the Franklin case over 40 years ago.
I’m no lawyer nor do I ever want to be one nor would I ever accept an acting job playing one, but I could have done a better job in a few of those major cases over the years! In a few of them Apple’s legal response to such big lawsuits has bordered on asinine or willful disregard of reality.
Apple’s lawyers have allowed the opposing side to frame the case around things it was not thus forcing Apple to fight a losing battle. Just a couple examples are the “look and feel case” when it was really about the contract interpretation about using Mac System software source code beyond the Windows 1.x stage and the “book case” being framed around the clauses being “most favored nation” clauses when the clauses were really “best customer” clauses, which are radically different in their meaning.
Ultimately, Apple will be entitled to its own store, but the others will be able to install a completely separate one, as should have been the case from the outset.
Apple created a platform. Developers came to it with their own free will. Consumers came to it with their own free will. No one is being forced to use iPhones as there are plenty of Android smartphones available. Apple has the majority of the smartphone market in the U.S. because consumers want to use iPhones. How is Apple at fault? If they don’t like Apple’s rules they can easily move to another platform. I honestly don’t understand.
What he said! Nobody is being forced to use apple products! I don’t see the problem.
If you own an iPhone, you most definitely are forced to use Apple products. You own the phone, not Apple. And you’re forced into shopping at Apple’s store and using only things Apple allows you to use.
If Apple owned the device,say they leased instead of sold, it would be different.
How dare Apple become successful by making products people want. Seems unfair to the companies that make inferior products. Maybe instead of punishing Apple, Big Brother should force consumers to buy products they don’t want?
Meaningless…. Whether you think Apple does or does not have a monopoly is not going to make a difference. As usual with Class Action Lawsuits, the attorneys and law firms are the ones that profit.
Welfare program for lawyers. Nothing else.