Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 against Apple in an anticompetitive case involving the App Store, allowing iPhone users to move forward with their class action lawsuit against the company, as first reported by CNBC.

app store monopoly
From the Supreme Court's ruling:

In this case, however, several consumers contend that Apple charges too much for apps. The consumers argue, in particular, that Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to charge consumers higher-than competitive prices.

A claim that a monopolistic retailer (here, Apple) has used its monopoly to overcharge consumers is a classic antitrust claim. But Apple asserts that the consumer plaintiffs in this case may not sue Apple because they supposedly were not "direct purchasers" from Apple under our decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720.

We disagree. The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs' antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws. We affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by a group of ‌iPhone‌ users who believe Apple violates federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through its ‌App Store‌, where it collects a 30 percent commission from all purchases, leading to inflated prices as developers pass on the cost of the commission to customers.

In other words, the ‌iPhone‌ users believe that apps would be priced lower outside of the ‌App Store‌, as Apple's 30 percent cut would not be baked in to prices.

The lawsuit was initially dismissed in 2013 by a California district court due to errors in the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the case in 2017. Apple then appealed with the Supreme Court.

From the start, Apple has argued that it doesn't set prices for paid apps, and that charging a 30 percent commission on the distribution of paid apps and in-app purchases does not violate antitrust laws in the United States. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Apple.

Update: Apple has issued a statement (via John Packzowski) regarding the decision:

Today's decision means plaintiffs can proceed with their case in District court. We're confident we will prevail when the facts are presented and that the App Store is not a monopoly by any metric.

We're proud to have created the safest, most secure and trusted platform for customers and a great business opportunity for all developers around the world. Developers set the price they want to charge for their app and Apple has no role in that. That vast majority of apps on the App Store are free and Apple gets nothing from them. The only instance where Apple shares in revenue is if the developer chooses to sell digital services through the App Store.

Developers have a number of platforms to choose from to deliver their software — from other apps stores, to Smart TVs to gaming consoles — and we work hard every day to make our store is the best, safest and most competitive in the world.

The Supreme Court's full ruling is embedded ahead.

Popular Stories

ios 19 messages app

Apple Sues Jon Prosser Over iOS 26 Leaks

Thursday July 17, 2025 8:40 pm PDT by
Earlier this year, YouTuber Jon Prosser shared multiple videos showing off what he claimed to be re-created renderings of what was then presumed to be called iOS 19 and which was eventually unveiled by Apple as iOS 26 at WWDC in June. In his first video back in January, Prosser showed off a Camera app redesign with a simpler set of buttons for moving between photo and video modes, and he...
iPhone 17 Colors

All 15 New iPhone 17 and iPhone 17 Pro Colors Revealed in Latest Leak

Wednesday July 16, 2025 6:50 am PDT by
We may finally have a definitive list of all color options for the iPhone 17 series, ahead of the devices launching in September. MacRumors concept In a report for Macworld today, Filipe Espósito said he obtained an "internal document" that allegedly reveals all of the color options for the upcoming iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Air, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max models. The report includes ...
iOS 26 on Three iPhones

Here's When to Expect the iOS 26 Public Beta

Tuesday July 15, 2025 11:07 am PDT by
Apple previously announced that a public beta of iOS 26 would be available in July, and now a more specific timeframe has surfaced. Bloomberg's Mark Gurman today said that Apple's public betas should be released on or around Wednesday, July 23. In other words, expect the public betas of iOS 26, iPadOS 26, macOS 26, and more to be available at some point next week. Apple will be releasing...
iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

Ranked: The Best Features Rumored for the iPhone 17 Lineup

Wednesday July 16, 2025 4:17 pm PDT by
We have just under two months to go until the debut of Apple's iPhone 17 models, and rumors have been ramping up in recent weeks. We went through everything we know so far, pulling out the most exciting rumors and highlighting some other changes that aren't going to be so great. Top Tier Ultra Thin iPhone 17 Air - The iPhone 17 Air is 2025's most exciting iPhone rumor, because it's the...
Foldable iPhone 2023 Feature Homescreen

Foldable iPhone's Thickness and Price Range Detailed in New Reports

Wednesday July 16, 2025 11:31 am PDT by
Apple's long-rumored foldable iPhone will likely have a starting price between $1,800 and $2,000 in the U.S., analysts at investment banking firm UBS said this week. If so, the foldable iPhone would cost more than a MacBook Pro, which starts at $1,599. With a starting price of at least $1,800, the foldable iPhone would be the most expensive iPhone model ever released, topping the Pro Max at...
iPhone 17 Pro in Hand Feature Lowgo

iPhone 17 Pro Coming Soon With These 16 New Features

Friday July 11, 2025 12:40 pm PDT by
Apple's next-generation iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are only two months away, and there are plenty of rumors about the devices. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models. Latest Rumors These rumors surfaced in June and July:A redesigned Dynamic Island: It has been rumored that all iPhone 17 models will have a redesigned Dynamic Island interface — it might ...
Apple Watch Ultra 2 Complications

Apple Watch Ultra 3: What to Expect

Sunday July 13, 2025 10:30 am PDT by
The long wait for an Apple Watch Ultra 3 is nearly over, and a handful of new features and changes have been rumored for the device. Below, we recap what to expect from the Apple Watch Ultra 3:Satellite connectivity for sending and receiving text messages when Wi-Fi and cellular coverage is unavailable 5G support, up from LTE on the Apple Watch Ultra 2 Likely a wide-angle OLED display that ...

Top Rated Comments

johnrlaporta Avatar
81 months ago
How ridiculous. If they stopped charging the 30%, the companies would just keep the price the same and pocket the 30% Who wouldn't?
Score: 46 Votes (Like | Disagree)
macjoshua Avatar
81 months ago
They can always buy an Android phone if they want a more open and potentially insecure way of getting apps.
Score: 45 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Rogifan Avatar
81 months ago
Good. It IS a monopoly.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone. I should have the choice to install apps from whatever source I desire, and I shouldn't have to go through ridiculous machinations with Xcode every week to do it.
It’s not though. You’re basically buying a license to software that comes with an end user license agreement (EULA) which dictates what can and can’t be done with the software. It’s not a monopoly because one can easily buy something else.
Score: 44 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Victor Mortimer Avatar
81 months ago
Good. It IS a monopoly.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone. I should have the choice to install apps from whatever source I desire, and I shouldn't have to go through ridiculous machinations with Xcode every week to do it.
Score: 36 Votes (Like | Disagree)
TimFL1 Avatar
81 months ago
Will be interesting to see how this plays out....
It wont. This will go nowhere, platform holders take cuts everywhere (console stores, Steam, Epic Store, literally any marketplace on earth does so to finance the delivery of said content).
30% is the average fee, it‘s ugly but everyone does it.

I, for one, am against having other places than the App Store for app distribution. One unified place to get your apps (securely and up-to-date) from beats out the mess you find on Android.
Score: 33 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Rogifan Avatar
81 months ago
No You can’t!
Because apple has a walled garden too. If You have a watch?
Again no one is personally forced to own any Apple product.
Score: 24 Votes (Like | Disagree)