iPhone Users Get Court Nod to Sue Apple for App Store Monopoly

iPhone Users Get Court Nod to Sue Apple for App Store Monopoly
Highlights
  • Lawsuit was originally filed in 2012
  • A group of iPhone users sued saying Apple's practice was anti-competitive
  • Courts have yet to address the substance of the iPhone users' allegations

iPhone app purchasers may sue Apple Inc over allegations that the company monopolized the market for iPhone apps by not allowing users to purchase them outside the App Store, leading to higher prices, a US appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling revives a long-simmering legal challenge originally filed in 2012 taking aim at Apple's practice of only allowing iPhones to run apps purchased from its own App Store. A group of iPhone users sued saying the Cupertino, California, company's practice was anti-competitive.

Apple had argued that users did not have standing to sue it because they purchased apps from developers, with Apple simply renting out space to those developers. Developers pay a cut of their revenues to Apple in exchange for the right to sell in the App Store.

A lower court sided with Apple, but Judge William A. Fletcher ruled that iPhone users purchase apps directly from Apple, which gives iPhone users the right to bring a legal challenge against Apple.

Apple declined to comment.

The courts have yet to address the substance of the iPhone users' allegations; up this point, the wrangling has been over whether they have the right to sue Apple in the first place.

But if the challenge ultimately succeeds, "the obvious solution is to compel Apple to let people shop for applications wherever they want, which would open the market and help lower prices," Mark C. Rifkin, an attorney with Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz representing the group of iPhone users, told Reuters in an interview. "The other alternative is for Apple to pay people damages for the higher than competitive prices they've had to pay historically because Apple has utilized its monopoly."

The case is Pepper et al v. Apple Inc., case number 4:11-cv-06714 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

© Thomson Reuters 2016

Comments

For the latest tech news and reviews, follow Gadgets 360 on Twitter, Facebook, and Google News. For the latest videos on gadgets and tech, subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Nintendo Switch Online Features to Be Paid After Free Trial
Supreme Court Rejects Reliance, Airtel, Idea Challenge to Spectrum Auction

Related Stories

Share on Facebook Tweet Snapchat Share Reddit Comment
 
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

© Copyright Red Pixels Ventures Limited 2022. All rights reserved.