[ad_1]
Indo-Asian Information Service
Nov 25, 2018 14:38 IST
Apple Last week, the US press announced that the company will go to the United States Supreme Court to prevent a group of customers from suing the technology giant for monopoly abuse.
The company is battling a group of iPhone owners who claim that Apple is forcing them to pay too much for apps by banning their rivals from the multi-billion dollar App Store.
After clients were granted the right to bring a class action against the company in 2017, Apple is now appealing to the Supreme Court to have the decision overturned. The telegraph reported late on November 24th.
Image of representation. Reuters.
If Apple fails, the business model of Application Store, one of the most profitable and fastest-growing divisions of society, could be threatened, he added.
Apple earns billions every year by reducing by 30% the number of apps sold through the App Store, created by the developers. Revenue from apps grew by about one-third in 2017 to $ 38.5 billion, while iPhone and iPads stalled.
Customers argue that its substantial commission is proof that the company is exploiting its monopoly position on iPhone users. They claim that "iPhone users nationwide have paid (Apple) hundreds of millions of dollars more for iPhone apps than they would have paid in a competitive market."
Apple is seeking to dismiss the case by appealing a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that only "direct purchasers" can claim damages for abuse of competition.
The company says that since app developers are pricing apps in the App Store and not Apple, iPhone users buy applications directly from developers.
Its opponents claim that, to the extent that Apple sets the rules for the App Store, such as the minimum price, it actually sells the apps to users.
The Supreme Court must hear the arguments on Monday, although it will probably be months before its judges announce their decision.
If Apple fails to overturn the previous ruling, the company will likely face years of legal wrangling in a case dating back to 2011.
[ad_2]
Source link
