Supreme Court Could Permit Prosecution for Apple iPhone Application Sales

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court seemed ready Monday to allow an antitrust lawsuit to claim that Apple had unfairly monopolized the iPhone app sales market.

Apple was facing skeptical questions from judges who seemed preoccupied with the control exercised The Cupertino, Calif.-based company operates on iPhone users who must purchase software exclusively via its App Store.

The arguments were about the fruits of technology that, over the last 10 years, has put more than 2 million applications available to iPhone users. But in the courtroom, there has also been reference to old antitrust cases involving concrete, aluminum, natural gas and shoes.

The lawsuit filed by iPhone users could force Apple to reduce by 30% the commission it charges software developers whose applications are sold. the App Store. A judge could triple the amount of compensation paid to consumers under antitrust law if Apple ended up losing the lawsuit.

But the question before the High Court is whether the case can or can not be continued. Judge Stephen Breyer, who taught antitrust law at Harvard Law School, said that the consumer case seemed simple and consistent with a century of antitrust law.

Apple claims that it is only a pipeline between the application developers and consumers, and that the iPhone Under federal laws prohibiting the control Unfair of a market, users do not have to badert their rights.

Tens of thousands of software developers set prices and agree to pay Apple a 30% commission on everything they sell, said Apple's attorney representative to the media. audience room. According to Daniel Wall, if anyone should be able to sue Apple, he's a developer. "There has been a lot of conflict, but no one has ever been sued," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts was alone among the nine judges who seemed willing to subscribe to Apple.

Judges Elena Kagan believe that consumers seem to have a direct relationship with Apple. "I'm getting my iPhone back. I go to the Apple App Store. I pay directly to Apple the credit card information I have provided to Apple. From my point of view, I just signed a one-step deal with Apple, "said Kagan.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh said that if consumers pay more than they should, they should perhaps The relevant federal antitrust law provides that "any injured person" may sue, said Kavanaugh.

His remarks could align him with the judges who would allow the prosecution to continue. , the court ruled that there should be a direct relationship between the seller and a party complaining of unjustified and anti-competitive prices.

Consumers can choose from over 2 million applications, compared to 500 previously proposed apps available when Apple created the App Store in 2008. "The phrase" there is an app for this "is now part of the popular lexicon," said Roberts. in a 2014 decision restricting searches without warrant from cell phones by the police.

But the company says that the popularity of software for iPhone and its App Store should not forget that consumers buy applications from developers, not Apple. Developers have set prices, although Apple is asking for prices to end in 0.99, Wall said. The Trump administration backs Apple before the high court

Lawyer David Frederick, who represents consumers, said that Apple's monopoly on iPhone applications was unique to the Digital age. "Apple can not designate another e-commerce distributor that does what it does," said Frederick. Even Apple allows third parties to sell software directly to buyers of its desktops and laptops, he said.

A court of first instance initially dismissed the complaint. The court of appeal of the 9th American circuit has restored it.

A win for Apple could seriously limit consumers' ability to sue for antitrust violations, even though Congress was considering such a lawsuit "would be a central element of antitrust enforcement." warned 18 competition law specialists in a case before the Supreme Court.

An Apple Inc. case c. Pepper, 17-204, is expected for late spring.