
Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed - CWSZ
https://www.wired.com/story/supreme-court-apple-decision-antitrust/
======
dang
The opinion is here:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf).

(That was the posted URL, but it's usually best to find the highest-quality
popular article on a story and then include a link to the "paper" in the
thread.

If anyone finds a better URL we can change it again—I just Googled until I
found something that wasn't too annoying.)

~~~
Kye
SCOTUSBlog is my go-to source for all SCOTUS news and discussion.

[https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-
divided-...](https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-divided-
court-allows-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-to-continue/)

~~~
remarkEon
The audio overlay with the transcript is always amazing.

[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204)

~~~
ZeikJT
That was amazing. Never knew this kind of resource existed, thanks!

~~~
remarkEon
The best part is how the headshot of the Justice is highlighted when he or she
is speaking. It's great. Since there are no cameras allowed in the Supreme
Court (thank God), this is I think the best approximation there is. June is
right around the corner too, so there will be plenty more to go through soon.

------
jcranmer
For those who don't want to read the opinion:

SCOTUS holds that Apple can be sued for alleged monopoly of the Apple App
Store. It does not decide whether or not this alleged monopoly exist.

Interestingly, it's a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh writing the decision,
joined by the 4 liberal justices. Probably the most unexpected alignment of
the current term!

~~~
outside1234
This is what is great about it being a lifetime appointment.

There is literally nothing else for these folks to strive for except being
well regarded in the history books, so they can finally do what they regard as
the best thing to do.

~~~
SpikeDad
This is what's terrible about being a lifetime appointment. Once a politicial
driven justice gets appointed there's literally nothing that will change them.

Perhaps in the "old" days when Justices had the feelings you're attributing it
might be true but now in the current political situation ideologues are who
are sought out to appoint and they care only they're well regarded by their
own political persuasion.

~~~
chrisseaton
> they care only they're well regarded by their own political persuasion

Why would they care about that? They already have the job for life. They don’t
need to please their audience any more. They’re free to act on principle.

~~~
kelnos
Because people aren't actually like that in real life. Just because they've
gotten a to a particular lifetime job in life, it doesn't mean they don't
still crave the approval of their peers. They don't live in a vacuum. They
want to still be invited to speak at the places they usually speak, attend the
same parties they usually attend, etc.

And beyond that, there's a more fundamental issue: people like this are chosen
for these roles _because_ of their fervent, polarized political beliefs. Their
principles, if they have any, are either aligned with or overcome by the
politics. Their willingness to listen to reason and step outside their bubble
is limited, unless doing so lines up with their politics.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Exactly. And the Heritage Society goes out of its way to cultivate a bunch of
peers, current Supreme Court Justices being the first and foremost of those
peers.

~~~
chrisseaton
Do you mean the Heritage Foundation?

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Dangit. I meant the Federalist Society.

------
mmastrac
For those confused like me:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper)

> Apple filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in August
> 2017, posing the question "whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers
> goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on
> prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the
> alleged offense". The Court agreed to hear the case in June 2018.[8] Oral
> arguments were held on November 26.[9] [10] Court observers stated that the
> four liberal Justices were joined by three of the conservative ones,
> Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, as to side with consumers on the
> question of standing.[11] Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that Apple's
> practice creates a closed loop that impacts the price paid by consumers.[12]
> Justice Neil Gorsuch considered that the prior decision from Illinois Brick
> may need to be overturned at the federal level, as at least 30 states have
> rejected the Illinois Brick doctrine.[12]

> The Court issued its 5-4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth
> Circuit's decision that consumers did have standing under Illinois Brick to
> sue Apple for antitrust practices. Justice Bret Kavanaugh, writing for the
> majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were
> directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers, that
> consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected
> the prices of the apps, and that while the structure for any damages that
> consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, this is not a
> factor to determine the standing of the suit. Kavanaugh was joined by
> Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the
> class-action case to continue in lower courts, though did not rule on any of
> the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case.

------
cabaalis
Am I reading correctly that this argument has now been going on for 8 years,
or at minimum nearly 6? [1] An argument about _who I am buying from_ when I
type my credit card into Apple's system, click a purchase button on an Apple
device, and then use the results of that purchase solely on Apple devices?

[1]
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204)

~~~
derefr
I see what you’re implying, but tweak one little thing and the answer seems
vastly different:

Instead of an Apple device, say you’re using a Google-manufactured Android
device (something-or-other), and have installed a _third-party_ App Store on
it. But that third-party App Store turns around and uses _Google Pay_ as its
payment processor.

All the same qualifications still apply: you essentially used a “Google POS
device” (your phone), were routed through Google payment processing, and the
results were deployed to a Google device (your phone again.)

But from the perspective of the seller, you were just using an arbitrary
_Android_ device to run their App Store on; and Google, to them, is just the
payment-processor they chose to use (probably because it’s conveniently
integrated on Android devices) but they could have just-as-well used PayPal or
Stripe.

Is this third-party App Store—in this particular case—legally “Google?” Even
though, in other cases, where people are using other non-Google Android
devices to access the store, or maybe selecting a different payment-processor
option at checkout, they definitely _aren’t_ legally Google? I would say
“obviously no.” Those apps were legally sold by the third-party App Store.
Google _was_ just a payment processor there. (Payment processors still _also_
have legal responsibilities regarding the transaction, but they’re different
than those of the seller.)

And if that’s true, then what’s the difference between a third-party App Store
that you installed as its own app, and a “third-party App Store” that is a
section of the Apple App Store app, e.g. a Microsoft section or Adobe section?
Isn’t that the same as, say, buying from a physical Microsoft store in an
Apple-owned shopping mall?

And if _that’s_ true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you
purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is
owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one?

I feel like this _is_ something that’s unclear enough that you could spent
eight years arguing the various precedents behind deciding either way.

~~~
pier25
The difference is that the hypothetical third party Android App Store could
use any payment service it wanted, or even the user could use any App Store it
preferred.

With iOS not only you can't buy from a third party, you can't even install an
app that hasn't been signed by Apple.

~~~
Fellshard
I would argue the point of consumer choice is at device selection. If they
choose the ecosystem with the heavy markup, when they had alternatives, then
they are responsible for incurring their own additional costs. The information
is public regarding app costs between devices and marketplaces. This seems to
me a bad ruling based on that.

~~~
bduerst
Blaming the consumer in this case doesn't fly because the consumer owns the
device once they purchase it, and it is anticompetitive for Apple to lock out
competing services on the consumer's device. The "Just don't buy it" argument
also doesn't work for _The Right to Repair_ movement.

Either way, end users have the right to sue Apple here, not just the
developers.

~~~
Fellshard
That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a
general computing device that they can use for any purpose and customize
freely, which is simply not the case.

Furthermore, repair applies to the hardware of the device, not the software
ecosystem. You have to make a separate, very different argument for software
as it is more malleable and less restricted than hardware components are.

~~~
jasonlotito
> That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a
> general computing device

Considering Apple has been pushing the "iPad is a PC replacement," it's a
fairly easy case to make with regard to iOS and the App store. There is a lot
Apple has done to push the idea that the "users" are in control of their
information and that "there is an app for that." Couple that with the history
of people being able to customize their phones in certain ways, it's not a
case that is that hard to make, especially when compared to contemporary
phones.

~~~
Fellshard
I do think you have a better argument: if Apple has falsely advertised the
capabilites of its platform as being capable of general computing, it may be
liable on that count. I do not think you can argue a history of customizing
phones, given Apple was the first provider with this scale of adoption.

------
simonh
For those downvoting bitwize, get a life. This is an accurate and impartial
explanation of the arguments actually at stake in the legal case, clarifying
an ambiguity in the post it's replying to.

Apple has two possible customers in this issue - the developers it provides
distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in
question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of
the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both.

~~~
DannyBee
It looks like there is a tremendous amount of downvoting of simple factual
info in this thread, unfortunately (the subjective opinions, sure, whatever)

~~~
ckastner
I've noticed with my own posts that some people here tend to downvote purely
factual information simply because they find it unpleasant. Although that
usually happens on some of the more controversial topics (and much more
frequently on weekends, IMO). This post isn't really controversial...

~~~
shawnz
I don't think it's wrong to downvote unpleasant-but-true posts if it appears
that the author's intention was strictly to be provocational. Clearly that's
not the case here though

------
kbf
How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven
software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making
money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be
priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity
with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking
into account the fact that paying for a new version of a piece of software
used to be the norm, but on iOS, you buy the app once and expect updates for
free forever.

~~~
sethhochberg
Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not -
this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make
that determination about their business practices.

The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's
customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.

~~~
delinka
I think this debate is interesting, but I don't expect Apple to be happy about
the final outcome. A developer publishing solely on Apple's App Store (and
relying solely on Apple features to provide functionality) has no direct
access to the customer* - Apple prevents that fairly well. In this case, I
feel like, as a consumer, I'm Apple's customer. I think courts, and especially
juries, would agree.

That said, I don't see how the App Store is a monopoly. How would "monopoly"
be defined to even formulate a case against Apple?

* - notwithstanding that many apps want you to create an account on their systems - Apple does indeed allow this.

~~~
Majromax
> That said, I don't see how the App Store is a monopoly. How would "monopoly"
> be defined to even formulate a case against Apple?

I think the argument would be fairly straightforward: the App Store is the
exclusive avenue to distribute paid applications to iPhone users. In so doing,
it acts as a single seller of applications to consumers and a single buyer of
applications from developers, and its arbitrarily-set fees are incorporated
into prices.

The fine parsing comes in whether "iPhone users" are a sufficiently distinct
market to effectively make the App Store a monopoly, and I think reasonable
people could have different opinions here.

~~~
wayneftw
There was a story recently about how "83% of US teens have an iPhone, Android
9%" \-
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19610357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19610357)

So, they're certainly a monopoly in that market today and possibly in the
general market in the near future. I have also read that you don't even need
to have a higher than 50% market share to be considered a monopoly. You simply
need to affect the entire market, which Apple certainly does with their 45%
general market share in the US.

~~~
threeseed
It's ridiculous to think that Apple will be a monopoly in the future.

The overwhelming trend is towards Apple losing share as Chinese phone
manufacturers start to increasingly capture the middle market.

~~~
tekknik
yet all it would take is Apple reducing prices to change that trend, which can
happen at any unpredictable moment

------
shmerl
Can anyone now blast Apple on anti-trust grounds, for banning competing
browsers in their store?

When Apple want to sabotage universal adoption of certain technology (such as
DASH for video streaming), they can avoid implementing needed components on
the client side in their engine, forcing everyone who wants to target iOS (a
sizable chunk of the Web market) to support their own technology instead of
only something else.

So control over the browser engines in the store gives them anti-competitive
control which extends way beyond it. It's surprising no one challenged that
garbage until now.

~~~
mr_toad
On the one hand I dislike that Safari has a monopoly in iOS, but I fear the
alternative is a de-facto monopoly for Chrome, which could be even worse.

~~~
shmerl
Firefox could be released for iOS if not for this ban.

~~~
millstone
And so would Chrome which would, realistically, be far more popular.

------
abduhl
Oral arguments can be heard here

[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204)

A non-PDF version of the opinions can be found through that link or at
[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-204/#tab-...](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-204/#tab-
opinion-4093561) (which is at that link)

------
fastball
It would be nice if people in this thread could stop expressing surprise that
Justice Kavanaugh sided the way he did when these people presumably have no
idea which way Kavanaugh has decided for similar cases in the past.

~~~
vorpalhex
This is flippant and non-helpful. If you disagree with how his record is
characterized, then please post counter examples. But let me post the
following:

\+ Rejected challenges to NSA authority

\+ Rejected workers rights to picket

\+ Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools

\+ Rejected meat labeling requirements

\+ Repeatedly restricted the EPA

[https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-
tr...](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-track-
record-675294)

Kavanaugh is highly anti-consumer. That he's sided with consumers in this case
is very surprising to me.

~~~
TimTheTinker
> Kavanaugh is highly anti-consumer. That he's sided with consumers in this
> case is very surprising to me.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume partisanship on the basis of a <1
year voting record. That's a serious charge to levy against a judge, as it
implies he/she is violating his/her judicial oath by failing to "administer
justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
rich".

It's rather unfortunate that courts have become the foci of partisan politics.
It reflect the reality that Congress has been effectively abdicating their
duty as the ones who must write the law.

~~~
DropkickM16
Brett_Kavanaugh: U.S._Circuit_Judge_(2006–2018)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#U.S._Circuit_J...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#U.S._Circuit_Judge_\(2006%E2%80%932018\))

------
dlandis
> In this case, unlike in Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are not consumers
> at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain who are attempting to sue
> manufacturers at the top of the chain. There is no intermediary in the
> distribution chain between Apple and the consumer. The iPhone owners
> purchase apps directly from the retailer Apple, who is the alleged antitrust
> violator. The iPhone owners pay the alleged overcharge directly to Apple.
> The absence of an intermediary is dispositive.

Key paragraph from opinion.

------
ilarum
Essentially, the Supreme Court is letting an antitrust lawsuit against Apple
proceed — and it has rejected Apple’s argument that iOS App Store users aren’t
really its customers.

~~~
simonh
Not really, no. Apple has two customers in this respect - the developers it
provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The
point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the
basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be
both.

~~~
chadash
> Under US law the answer cannot be both.

Do you have a source for this? Reading the decision here it seems like both
the developers _and_ the consumers have standing to sue, although for slightly
different reasons [0].

[0] from the decision: " _Here, some downstream iPhone consumers have sued
Apple on a monopoly theory. And it could be that some upstream app developers
will also sue Apple on a monopsony theory. In this instance, the two suits
would rely on fundamentally different theories of harm and would not assert
dueling claims to a “common fund,” as that term was used in Illinois Brick.
The consumers seek damages based on the difference between the price they paid
and the competitive price. The app developers would seek lost profits that
they could have earned in a competitive retail market. Illinois Brick does not
bar either category of suit._ "

~~~
simonh
I tried to be clear about that. They are not the same “specific harm in
question”.

------
lalos
Question: How can Apple have a monopoly if a customer can decide to buy a
competitor's phone to use as they please (Android, etc). That's where I get
lost. The Windows/Netscape made sense since the claim was that Windows
dominated the market almost completely (around 90% on those times?). Can I sue
any other hardware device company (smart fridges, smart tvs, rokus) for
monopoly since I can't load my own apps on them? Anyways, having an alternate
app store on iOS sounds good to me.

~~~
DannyBee
This is specifically about the app store. Antitrust is all about defining
markets (which lots of people at HN don't get).

How the court defines the market will decide whether you win or lose in almost
all cases.

Here, this is a case about the app store. The market was defined as consumers
of apple phones who use the app store.

In that market, apple is clearly a monopolist.

In some larger or smaller market, they may not be.

~~~
lalos
Thanks for that pointer, this seems to a good read for more info on defining
markets.
[https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/...](https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/08/22/286279.pdf)

------
intopieces
If Apple were to be required to allow third party App Stores or side loading
apps, could it legally deny interoperability with Apple services as a
“security measure,” like a sandbox? For example, you can download a game, but
it won’t hook into their gaming social network. No ability to share in
iMessage, or sync data to iCloud. Basically cripple the apps so that for the
end user it isn’t worth saving the money on the apps that don’t have the 30%
markup.

~~~
hmage
In my experience, if there's an option to ask same price everywhere, sellers
will do that. So on app store it will cost (for example) 4.99$, and on third
party app store without 30% cut, the developers will still set the price of
4.99$.

The only kind of place I've seen prices less than MSRP is discount stores like
cdkeys. For example, try to find microsoft windows that costs less than MSRP
-- on all stores, first party and third party, the price will be the same.

So, lack of 30% markup is very unlikely to reduce the final asking price by
30%.

~~~
intopieces
If this is the case, I see no particular reason to go through the hassle of a
3rd party App Store or side loading on iPhone. But, my time vs $ saved
equation is different from lots of people, so I suppose it would appeal to
some users at even a 10% discount or less.

------
chirau
Is this not similar to when you buy an item from a department store? When you
buy a jacket from say, Tommy Hilfiger, in Macy's.. . who are you buying from?

~~~
oflannabhra
It is similar, but not identical. A department store buys physical goods from
a vendor, and then sells them to consumers. An App Store provides distribution
and payment services to vendors and consumers.

For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the
department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale.

For an App Store, most people would agree that the Store does not own the
digital goods they are selling to consumers.

So, while a superficially similar transaction occurs, both the nature of
digital goods and the difference between goods and services makes for pretty
vast differences under the surface.

~~~
jimktrains2
> For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the
> department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale.

Just to bit pick and it doesn't really change your point, but I thought a lot
of places basically do consignment now for their vendors and don't own much of
their stock?

~~~
bduerst
This is true. A lot of inventory in big box retail isn't owned by the
retailer, but the distributer/manufacturer. More and more big box retailers
are moving into the business of leasing out floor space, and ditching buying
and selling inventory.

The difference is that big box retailers won't force you to only make
purchases with their credit cards or other vertical integration limitations.

------
theshrike79
So I could now sue Microsoft because I can only buy XBox games from their
store?

Or Sony, because they are the only vendor of Playstation games?

~~~
sjy
Would it be a bad thing for society if the antitrust laws were interpreted in
this way? Why should these hardware vendors be allowed to exercise control
over the software their customers run? Personally I think that open platforms
are socially important, and I'm concerned that voting with my wallet isn't
enough to protect and nurture them. Most people don't have the time, knowledge
or interest to think about open vs closed platforms when they make purchasing
decisions, and I think law is an appropriate solution to this market failure.

------
pankajdoharey
I am having hardtime understanding if this can even be called a monopoly?
Assume there is a A _mart if it lets other vendors sell their products in its
store on the condition that there is a small price they have to pay in order
to put their products on its shelves in return they dont need to pay rent and
they get the benefit of customers who love to shop at A_ mart could this be
considered a monopoly? Also who is responsible if there is a defect in the
product? the vendor of the said product or Amart?

~~~
Kye
I can go somewhere else to buy potatoes if I don't like how one store handles
them. An iPhone owner can't go off to the Microsoft, Google, or Amazon stores
if they don't like the version in the Apple store. They have a monopoly on
apps for iOS devices.

~~~
pankajdoharey
Well with that logic, i you own a Ford Truck and you dont like their service
can you go to Honda service center? the app store.

~~~
hxegon
you can go to an independent mechanic, or a different ford service center.

~~~
pankajdoharey
Well you can install alternative app stores on iOS Devices without
jailbreaking. Essentially all you need is a profile for that app store, the
entire ecosystem of enterprise Device management in built on this mechanism
which provides custom app stores to enterprises.

~~~
chj
No, you can't distribute apps directly to customers. That's why Facebook's
certificate got revoked by Apple.

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-
google-...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-
offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/)

~~~
pankajdoharey
I wasnt aware of this!

------
Jorge1o1
Wow! 5-4 decision, but overall a big win for the consumer. Apple’s legal team
is having a really rough year

------
josephjaber
Another article for more context.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/26/iphone-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/26/iphone-
users-are-taking-apples-app-store-supreme-court-heres-what-it-
means/?noredirect=on)

> iPhone users can sue Apple over “monopolistic” prices in the iOS App Store,
> prices that a group of consumers allege are driven higher by the commissions
> Apple charges independent appmakers.

------
0_gravitas
Now I'm not in the apple ecosystem personally so I don't know, but are there
other "store fronts" that serve the apple ecosystem, or is Apple store the
only one?

~~~
m-p-3
Since nobody answered and downvoted, all apps needs to be submitted to the App
Store and be downloaded from there exclusively, and all payments, even
subscriptions that are made through the app, needs to go through Apple.

Some providers like Netflix and Spotify are deliberately not offering the
option to subscribe through the iOS app to avoid paying the Apple tax
currently at 30%, and for subscriptions I believe the cut is reduced if the
user is subscribed for a certain period of time.

------
DannyBee
I wrote comments on this case here in the past, and not gonna rewrite them, so
here is the TL;DR:

This was not unexpected but precedent was on Apple's side.

Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app
store. They buy apps from the developers" card.

This is technically true.

In that situation, Illinois Brick/etc would normally say consumers cannot sue
you, only app developers can. Most of the reasoning in those decisions is
around how hard it is to calculate damages, etc.

However, the court refused to buy it.

The abstract they give is pretty easy to understand: "Second, Apple’s theory
is not persuasive economically or legally. It would draw an arbitrary and
unprincipled line among retailers based on their financial arrangements with
their manufacturers or suppliers. And it would permit a consumer to sue a
monopolistic retailer when the retailer set the retail price by marking up the
price it had paid the manufacturer or supplier for the good or service but not
when the manufacturer or supplier set the retail price and the retailer took a
commission on each sale.

Third, Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic retailers to
structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers so as to evade
antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart effective antitrust
enforcement. "

~~~
pentae
> Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an
> app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically
> true.

How is it technically true? Apple collects the payment and takes a cut. Yes,
the developer gets to set their prices, but I don't see this as any different
to manufacturers of products setting their cost price for retailers, who then
go and apply their markup to it.

~~~
DannyBee
It's technically true because there is no real intermediary in apple's case
(the "retailer" in your example). It's illusory.

(this is also what the court found)

Also keep in mind that various kinds of price fixing by manufacturers (IE
forcing retailers to sell at a certain price) are also subject to antitrust
arguments. It's simply no longer "per-se" illegal. For a long time, the
precedent was that various forms of price fixing and price maintenance were
illegal on their face. YOu didn't have to prove it hurt anyone, only that it
existed.

They are now subject to rule of reason analysis (basically, balancing of
harms).

The reason such lawsuits are uncommon is not because the price fixing is okay,
but because it is incredibly expensive and time consuming to litigate for a
very uncertain outcome :)

~~~
bradstewart
How is there no "real" intermediary?

To purchase a product I go to an Apple owned-and-operated store, give Apple my
credit card, and receive an item that's been packaged and signed by Apple
tools from an Apple server.

~~~
DannyBee
I mean (as the court did) intermediary between apple and the consumer. Which
you yourself have shown is illusory :)

Apple's claim is in large part that the transaction is _not_ between them and
the consumer, but they are basically just off to the side somewhere. Again, in
historical precedent like Illinois Brick, that is most certainly correct, and
you can bet money the app store was structured in precisely the way it was to
try to fall under that precedent.

However, that illusion of being off to the side is clearly false from a
practical perspective, as you have shown, and in the end, that is what lost
them the case.

Apple took the precedent to the logical extreme, and when you do that, you run
the risk of the supreme court saying "yeah, actually, that goes against what
we were trying to accomplish in the first place be". Which they did here: in
the abstract, they actually say "yeah, we get it, but that that makes no sense
in practice".

(Hopefully lyft/uber/etc are paying attention, because they seem to expect the
courts to let them take their "we're just app makers" argument to the logical
extreme in a different legal context)

------
elamje
What is a reasonable time frame for an antitrust lawsuit to conclude in? Now
that the consumers have the legal ability to sue, how long could this take,
considering that it took 8 years to get to this point?

------
3xblah
"But Illinois Brick is not a get-out-of-court free card for monopolistic
retailers to play anytime that a damages calculation might be complicated."

A reference to the American board game "Monopoly" and its "Get out of jail
free" card.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_\(game\))

------
wdn
I think this is BS. The developer is not required to release their apps on the
Apple platform. The consumers can elect not to buy Apple's product.

Now this case can proceed, then what stops consumers or sellers from suing
Amazon, eBay or Google Express? They are a monopoly in their own domain.

Amazon, for example, charges 15% for sellers fulfilled for every sale. The fee
is even higher if the seller elects to be filled by Amazon.

------
sbr464
Details:

[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204)

Link to Oral Argument Audio:

[https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio...](https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio/24778)

------
GeekyBear
This would be an example of a class action lawsuit and not an antitrust
lawsuit, no?

Antitrust lawsuits are brought by the government itself, not consumers.

For example, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated or United
States vs. Microsoft Corporation.

~~~
sjy
Whether it's an antitrust suit depends on whether the plaintiff is suing under
the antitrust laws, not whether the plaintiff is the government. "Any person
who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything
forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the
United States in the district in which the defendant resides":
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15)

------
8347mr
The dissent's opinion is very weird. All of the justices agree that developers
are suppliers, Apple is the seller, and the consumers are the buyers.

They all implicitly agree that buyers have standing to sue sellers who
illegally use a monopoly to overcharge the buyer.

But - somehow - that is no longer true if the seller also overcharges their
supplier. Then the dissent says that any harm is "passed-through" the
supplier.

Huh? The buyer isn't buying from the supplier, they're buying from the seller.
If any harm passes from the seller to a supplier, then the only way for it to
get back to the buyer is for it to then flow back through the seller to the
buyer. AKA the overcharge is still coming from the seller.

------
pier25
What excites me most about this is being able to test on iOS devices without
all the Apple signing paranoia and having more browser engines on iOS.

------
sgjohnson
I don’t think it’ll go anywhere. How is it any different from what Sony is
doing with the PlayStation store or Microsoft with Xbox?

~~~
intopieces
Those two stores are not the exclusive avenue for customers to play games.
Developers may choose to bypass those stores altogether and release their
games on disc if they choose.

~~~
amdavidson
Aren't all PS4 discs AES signed?

I believe that (barring a hacked system) there is no side loading of games
that aren't Sony-blessed.

~~~
intopieces
Sony blesses them, but the ways in which a consumer can obtain those blessed
discs is much more varied than the App Store, and Sony doesn’t oversee the
sale of discs. You can’t rent or borrow apps, can’t resell them, can’t trade
them...

------
m3kw9
Lol, according to the complaint, the 30% fee represent pure profit. That’s a
bad line of argument.

------
lqet
How are these documents typeset?

------
EGreg
We need open source software to decentralize large corporate app stores.

------
cfarm
I'm so confused how this is a monopoly. Buy an Android device.

------
samfisher83
delete

~~~
protomyth
I think if 30 states hadn't rejected it, the case probably would have had 2 of
the 4 switching sides. It does point to the need for some changes to the
federal anti-trust laws in the technology era.

------
naravara
I'm going to love reading the amicus briefs that Google and Amazon will surely
file.

------
swedish_mafia
Try to understand: Kavanugh and the people he is aligned with are like that
incompetent manager in your office who took your successful project using
their influence. Now they want to shake down Apple. After that google just
watch.

------
cwoolfe
As an app developer, I'm not a fan of apple taking a 30% or 15% cut. It's is
possible to get around by offering the app for free and then using a third
party payment processor to allow users to purchase or subscribe to a service
your app provides. The way I see it, developers have that choice to charge the
"expensive, easy way" using Apple's platform, or the "more profitable but
harder way" using a third party.

~~~
cullenking
You cannot do this. I run a website and mobile app ecosystem, which started as
a website with standard credit card billing. If you want to mention that you
have a website, or link to the website, you must provide every option the
website has for purchasing, in your app, using apple's payment system. There
is one exception, which is for physical goods/services, see Lyft and the like.

Sorry, but you have to take the 30% hit, or you can't mention your website,
and you certainly can't put in a third party payment system. You'll get booted
fast, or, won't even make it in the door when they review your app.

~~~
danesparza
Interesting. I suppose the distinguishing factor with apps like Amazon or Home
Depot is they deal in physical goods?

~~~
holy_city
I'm pretty sure the distinguishing factor is that Apple takes a cut of _all_
revenue that passes through the app. That was the beef Spotify had at least.

~~~
danesparza
Hmmm ... see the other comment to my post. It sounds like this isn't entirely
true. Certain apps like Amazon.com don't have to pay Apple 30% -- I buy plenty
of physical goods with the Amazon app, but 30% of those sales don't go to
Apple.

