A U.S. Appeals Court today ruled that App Store customers can move forward with a lawsuit claiming Apple created an illegal app monopoly because it did not allow users to purchase iPhone apps outside of the App Store, reports Reuters.
The decision reverses a 2013 ruling that dismissed the lawsuit, originally filed in 2012. The case, Pepper et al v. Apple Inc., alleges that by not letting users purchase apps from third-party sources, there was no price competition, leading to higher app prices.
When the lawsuit was originally filed, Apple requested that it be dismissed because developers, not Apple, set prices for App Store apps. Apple simply provides the platform developers use to sell apps to customers.
According to today's ruling, because iPhone users purchase the apps directly from Apple, they have the right to file a lawsuit against the company.
An attorney for the plaintiffs in the case told Reuters that the aim of the lawsuit is to allow people to shop for iPhone apps wherever they want, an outcome that's unlikely due to security implications.
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 Appeals Court ruling does not address the specific monopoly allegations levied at Apple and pertains only to whether or not Apple can be sued for this issue.
Top Stories
Apple Acquires Weather App Dark Sky
Zoom Accused of Misleading Users With 'End-to-End Encryption' Claims Amid Other Security Issues [Updated]
Case for Upcoming Low-Cost iPhone Shows Up at Best Buy With Alleged April 5 Stock Date
Bloomberg: Apple's 5G iPhone Still on Schedule for Fall Launch, But Future Products Could Be Delayed
Testing Brydge's New Pro+ Keyboard With Trackpad for iPad Pro
Apple's Work on New Upcoming Products Progressing Normally as Employees Adjust to Telecommuting
Apple Releases ProRes RAW Beta for Windows
Apple Configurator 2 Updated With New Features, Including Support for Restoring Firmware on 2019 Mac Pro
Seemingly Unreleased Version of Logic Pro X With Live Loops Appears on Apple's Education Site [Updated]
Top Rated Comments
(View all)what?
listen, i'm all against monopolistic competitive practices.
I'm all for releasing some stranglehold on economies that filthy rich have. i'm all for competition for luxury items.
but There's no monopoly here. If you don't like Apple's app store policy, There's a giant swath of Android manufacturers out there offering competitions, many come with their own App stores. If you're looking for an open and free market, that exists.
But where then does this "monopoly" end? What about OS? Apple has 100% of iOS installations on iPhones. is that not a monopoly preventing me choice of what OS I want? (although, I would love to buy an iPhone running android :p)
this is a slippery slope. Sometimes, yes, Lawsuits are required to keep a company in check, but sometimes, these things are more dangerous to the market than helpful
They own the entire ecosystem.
How in the hell so you sue somebody for something they developed and own 100%?
This will be an ongoing case which will cost millions and the outcome will be in favour of Apple, because of the above.
What an idiotic law suit. Developers receive 70%-85% of the revenue passing through the store and they control the pricing so how on earth can this be deemed a monopoly...
What a mess.
At least that was the official reason...