The judges skeptical about Apple regarding the sales of iPhone applications

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court seemed ready on Monday to authorize a lawsuit that said Apple would have unfairly monopolized the iPhone app sales market.

Apple's effort to end an antitrust lawsuit. Chief Justice John Roberts was alone among the nine judges who seemed willing to accept Apple.

The lawsuit brought by iPhone users could force Apple to reduce the 30% commission it charges to software developers whose apps are sold exclusively through the Apple App Store. ; Apple. A judge could triple the amount of compensation granted to consumers under antitrust law if Apple were ultimately to lose the complaint. 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 developers of apps and consumers.

The developers set prices and agreed to pay Apple a 30% commission on everything they sell, said Apple's attorney before the court. According to Daniel Wall, if anyone should be able to sue the Californian company Cupertino, it would be a developer. "There has been a lot of conflict and none has been the subject of litigation," he said.

But Judge Elena Kagan said that it appeared that consumers had a direct relationship with Apple. "I get my iPhone back, I go to the Apple App Store, I pay Apple directly for the credit card information I've provided to Apple," Kagan said.

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

His remarks could put him alongside judges who would allow the prosecution to continue. In other cases, the court ruled that there must 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 the 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," Roberts said in a 2014 decision limiting research without a warrant from cell phones by the police.

However, the company claims that the popularity of software for iPhone and its App Store should not make us 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 supports Apple in the high court

The lawyer David Frederick, who represents consumers, said that Apple's monopoly on iPhone applications was unique to the era digital. "Apple can not point to 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 victory of the US Court of Appeals has been restored.

A win for Apple could severely limit the ability of consumers to sue for antitrust violations, even if Congress contemplated such prosecution "would be a central element of antitrust enforcement" 18. competition law specialists in a case before the Supreme Court.

A decision in the Apple Inc. case c. Pepper, 17-204, is expected by the end of spring.

Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This document can not be published, distributed, rewritten or redistributed.