• Legal Era India
  • Legal Era Global
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

HomeNewsGlobal InsightsAmerica
26 Nov 2018 10:43 AM GMT

iPhone owners file antitrust suit against Apple

By Legal Era

Recently, a group of iPhone owners filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, an American multinational technology company, stating that the company forces them to overpay for apps by forbidding rivals to the App Store, which is a digital distribution platform developed and maintained by Apple Inc. for mobile apps on its iOS operating system.Moreover, another key issue in this case is that...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

Apple

Recently, a group of iPhone owners filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, an American multinational technology company, stating that the company forces them to overpay for apps by forbidding rivals to the App Store, which is a digital distribution platform developed and maintained by Apple Inc. for mobile apps on its iOS operating system.

Moreover, another key issue in this case is that any software application that an iPhone owner buys from the App Store includes a 30% commission for Apple.

Notably, it has been reported that Apple will be moving the US Supreme Court on these issues. The court will hear arguments in Apple’s bid to escape damages in a lawsuit accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone apps and causing consumers to pay more than they should.

In 2017, the iPhone owners had won the right to launch a class action lawsuit against Apple. However, Apple is now appealing to the Supreme Court to have the decision overturned. Notably, in case Apple fails, the business model of the App Store could be threatened.

Reportedly, Apple earns billions every year by taking a 30pc cut of apps, created by developers, sold through the App Store.

According to the iPhone owners, Apple’s sizeable commission is evidence of the company exploiting its monopoly position over iPhone users.

They said, “iPhone consumers nationwide have paid [Apple] hundreds of millions of dollars more for iPhone apps than they would have paid in a competitive market”.

On the other hand, Apple responded that it does not set the prices of apps in the App Store; instead, it is the app developers who set the prices. Therefore, Apple concluded that iPhone users are purchasing the apps directly from the developers.

Nevertheless, the iPhone users countered that it is Apple which sets rules regarding the App Store, including the minimum price, and that it is effectively selling the apps on to users.

Apple is now seeking to dismiss the case by appealing to a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that only “direct purchasers” can seek damages for antitrust abuse.

Next Story
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X
We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok