Apple Inc. v. Pepper

Last updated
Apple Inc. v. Pepper
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 26, 2018
Decided May 13, 2019
Full case nameApple Inc. v. Pepper, et al.
Docket no. 17-204
Citations587 U.S. ___ ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1514; 203 L. Ed. 2d 802
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013); reversed, In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig. (Pepper v. Apple Inc.), 846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2647 (2018).
Holding
Under Illinois Brick , the iPhone owners were direct purchasers who may sue Apple for alleged monopolization.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentGorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito
Laws applied
Clayton Act

Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers. [1] The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois , which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.

Contents

Background

With the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, Apple Inc. also provided the App Store marketplace that allows third-party developers to provide mobile apps to iPhone users. Apps can be provided for free or at a price, with Apple taking a 30% cut of any revenue. Apple's approach has been criticized, as its terms and conditions for developers to use the App Store prevent them from selling their apps on other marketplaces, and Apple's consumer warranties strongly discourage the use of installing apps in other ways. [lower-alpha 1] Some saw these conditions enabling Apple to effectively create a monopoly for app distribution, artificially forcing developers to raise costs of apps to cover Apple's fee. Apple has asserted that it has not violated antitrust laws as it considers itself a reseller of apps, its 30% fee a commission on the sale of those apps. [2]

Case origins

Several class-actions suits against Apple were filed shortly after the introduction of the iPhone; three of these were combined into a consolidated case In Re Apple & AT&TM Anti-Trust Litigation (No. C 07-05152 JW), filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. One of these focused on complaints towards Apple for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act in its alleged monopoly of the App Store marketplace, while a second set of complaints were aimed at both Apple and AT&T Mobility (AT&TM) for monopolizing the iPhone market via SIM card locking, forcing iPhone users to only use the AT&T Mobility cellular network. Apple sought to dismiss the case on various procedural grounds, including asserting that on consolidation, AT&T Mobility had been omitted as a defendant, and that as the class-action group, consumers using the iPhone, did not state they bought an iPhone or any App through the App Store, and thus did not have grounds to litigate under Article III of the Constitution. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333(2011), which stated that state laws cannot override arbitration allowances set by the Federal Arbitration Act, the District Court de-certified the case from its class-action status. [3]

Renewed case

A new class-action suit, In Re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation (11-cv-06714-YGR) was filed shortly after the decertification by the same plaintiffs in District Court; the new complaint, after several refinements, narrowly focused only on Apple as the sole defendant and the App Store complaints, and identified the plaintiffs as consumers of the iPhone and its apps, thus allowing for them to seek class-action. The District Court dismissed the suit with prejudice, upholding Apple's defense that the "Illinois Brick doctrine" from the Supreme Court case Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois , 431 U.S. 720(1977) applied, as only the developers of apps could be damaged by Apple's policies, and consumers did not have statutory standing to bring suit on the developers' behalf. The Court specifically noted that the 30% fee Apple collects is "a cost passed-on to consumers by independent software developers". [4]

Appeal

The class appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling, stating that the class had standing to sue under antitrust laws. [5] The decision raised the question of "whether Plaintiffs purchased their iPhone apps directly from the app developers, or directly from Apple". The ruling opened the question of whether, in terms of the App Store, Apple was a manufacturer or producer, in which case under Illinois Brick the class would not have standing, or whether Apple was a distributor, in which case the class would have standing. [6] This decision was split from the Eighth Circuit, where in a class-action suit against Ticketmaster [7] alleging antitrust complaints on venue tickets sales, the Eighth Circuit ruled that consumers were indirect purchasers under Illinois Brick due to the nature of ticket sales, and thus did not have standing. [8] Apple attempted to seek a rehearing en banc but were denied by May 2017.

Supreme Court

Apple filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in August 2017, posing the question "whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense". The US Government filed an amicus brief in support of Apple, arguing that the Ninth Circuit in reversing the District Court's ruling, went against the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Illinois Brick. The Court agreed to hear the case in June 2018. [9] Oral arguments were held on November 26. [10] [11] Court observers stated that the four liberal Justices were joined by three of the conservative ones, Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, as to side with consumers on the question of standing. [12] Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that Apple's practice creates a closed loop that impacts the price paid by consumers. [13] Justice Neil Gorsuch considered that the prior decision from Illinois Brick may need to be overturned at the federal level, as at least 30 states have rejected the Illinois Brick doctrine. [13]

Opinion of the Court

The Court issued its 5–4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision that consumers were "direct purchasers" of apps from Apple's store and had standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for antitrust practices. [14] Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers; that consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected the prices of the apps; and that while the structure for any damages that consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, that is not a factor to determine the standing of the suit. The Court stated that Apple's interpretation of Illinois Brick "did not make a lot of sense" and served only to "gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits." [15] Disagreeing with Apple's reasoning, the Court explained that if adopted, it would "directly contradict the longstanding goal of effective private enforcement and consumer protection in antitrust cases." Kavanaugh was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the class-action case to continue in lower courts but did not rule on any of the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case. [15]

Dissent

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, arguing that the majority's interpretation of Illinois Brick goes against previous principles and long-standing antitrust regulations.

Notes

  1. ↑ In contrast, while Google also collects fees on purchases of apps from Google Play store for Android devices, it neither holds a monopoly on phones, nor prevents apps to be sideloaded from other app stores or sources. [2]

Related Research Articles

<i>United States v. Microsoft Corp.</i> Antitrust lawsuit in 2001

United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34, was a noted American antitrust law case in which the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java. At trial, the district court ruled that Microsoft's actions constituted unlawful monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed most of the district court's judgments.

United States antitrust law collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws that regulate the conduct and organization of business corporations and are generally intended to promote competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These Acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price-fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that would likely substantially lessen competition. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits the abuse of monopoly power.

Tying is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good to the de facto customer conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good. Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related. It is related to but distinct from freebie marketing, a common method of giving away one item to ensure a continual flow of sales of another related item.

The Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 is a set of amendments to the antitrust laws of the United States, principally the Clayton Antitrust Act. The HSR Act was signed into law by president Gerald R. Ford on September 30, 1976. The context in which the HSR Act is usually cited is 15 U.S.C. § 18a, title II of the original law. The HSR Act is named after senators Philip A. Hart and Hugh D. Scott, Jr. and representative Peter W. Rodino.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld, 7–2, the antitrust exemption first granted to Major League Baseball (MLB) three decades earlier in Federal Baseball Club v. National League. It was also the first challenge to the reserve clause which prevented free agency, and one of the first cases heard and decided by the Warren Court.

Microsoft has been involved in numerous high-profile legal matters that involved litigation over the history of the company, including cases against the United States, the European Union, and competitors.

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case that involved issues concerning statutory standing in antitrust law. The Court's opinion established the rule that indirect purchasers of goods or services along a supply chain cannot seek damages for antitrust violations committed by the original manufacturer or service provider, but permitted such claims by direct purchasers. Several courts recognize exceptions to the rule. The decision has become known as the "Illinois Brick doctrine" and is applied to determine whether a plaintiff has standing to bring claims under various federal antitrust statutes.

David Charles Frederick is an appellate attorney in Washington, D.C., and is a partner with Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.

Edelson American law firm, previously known as Edelson McGuire

Edelson PC is an American plaintiffs' law firm that focuses on public client investigations, class actions, mass tort, and consumer protection laws.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

In addition to federal laws, each state has its own unfair competition law to prohibit false and misleading advertising. In California, one such statute is the Unfair Competition Law [hereinafter “UCL”], Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. The UCL “borrows heavily from section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act” but has developed its own body of case law.

Postmates is an American company that offers local delivery of restaurant-prepared meals and other goods. As of February 2019, Postmates operates in 2,940 U.S. cities.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

Uber Eats is an American online food ordering and delivery platform launched by Uber in 2014 and based in San Francisco, California.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) — abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME — was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of antitrust law in relationship to two-sided markets. The case specifically involves policies set by some credit card banks that prevented merchants from steering customers to use cards from other issuers with lower transaction fees, forcing merchants to pay higher transaction fees to the banks. While Visa and MasterCard settled with the United States Department of Justice in 2010, American Express defended its practice by arguing that the anti-steering policies benefited its cardholders, the higher transaction fees helping to maintain member services. While the Department of Justice and several states prevailed during a District Court trial in 2015 citing harm to the merchants, the Appeals Court reversed the District Court's ruling in 2016 by ruling that the plaintiffs had not shown harm to both sides of the two-side market, a novel test in antitrust law. This decision led to some of the states to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case was heard by the Court in February 2018.

Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a per curiam decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case concerning the practice of cy pres settlements in class action lawsuits. Following oral argument, the court asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the parties had Article III standing to pursue the case in federal courts. Supplemental briefing was completed on December 21, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2013.

Epic Games v. Apple is a current lawsuit brought by Epic Games against Apple in August 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, related to Apple's practices in the iOS App Store. Epic Games specifically had challenged Apple's restrictions on apps from having other in-app purchasing methods outside of the one offered by the App Store. Epic Games' founder Tim Sweeney had previously challenged the 30% revenue cut that Apple takes on each purchase made in the App Store, and with their game Fortnite, wanted to either bypass Apple or have Apple take less of a cut. Epic implemented changes in Fortnite purposely on August 13, 2020 to bypass the App Store payment system, prompting Apple to block the game from the App Store and leading to Epic filing its lawsuit.

References

  1. ↑ Apple Inc. v. Pepper,No. 17-204 , 587 U.S. ___(2019).
  2. 1 2 Matsakis, Louise (June 18, 2018). "The Supreme Court Will Decide If Apple's App Store Is a Monopoly". Wired . Retrieved June 19, 2018.
  3. ↑ In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., No.11-cv-06714-YGR ( N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013).
  4. ↑ In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., No.11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.Dec. 2, 2013).
  5. ↑ In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig. (Pepper v. Apple Inc.), 846F.3d313 ( 9th Cir. 2017).
  6. ↑ Condon, Stephanie (January 12, 2017). "US appeals court reopens lawsuit against Apple for alleged App Store monopoly". ZDNet . Retrieved June 18, 2018.
  7. ↑ Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp., 140F.3d1166 (8th Cir.1998).
  8. ↑ Frankel, Alison (January 13, 2017). "9th Circuit Apple antitrust ruling splits with 8th, is boon to consumers". Reuters . Retrieved June 18, 2018.
  9. ↑ Apple Inc. v. Pepper,138S. Ct.2647(2018).
  10. ↑ Stohr, Greg (June 18, 2018). "Apple Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review on iPhone App Fee Suit". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved June 18, 2018.
  11. ↑ Howe, Amy (October 9, 2018). "Court releases December Calendar". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved October 9, 2018.
  12. ↑ Wolf, Richard (November 26, 2018). "Supreme Court skeptical of Apple's monopoly on app purchases through its App Store". USA Today . Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  13. 1 2 Wilson, Pete (November 26, 2018). "Supreme Court may let consumers sue Apple over App Store monopoly claims". NBC News . Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  14. ↑ Liptak, Adam (May 13, 2019). "Supreme Court Allows Antitrust Suit Against Apple to Proceed". The New York Times . Retrieved May 14, 2019.
  15. 1 2 Goldman, David; Fung, Brian (May 13, 2019). "IPhone owners can sue Apple for monopolizing App Store, Supreme Court rules". CNN . Retrieved May 13, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.