
Supreme Court Rules Against Apple in App Store Antitrust Case - mudil
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-in-app-store-antitrust-case.html
======
JumpCrisscross
Aggressive headline. The ruling [1] was simply that the case is allowed to
proceed.

"The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct
purchas- ers under Illinois Brick. At this early pleadings stage of the
litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims
against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We
merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these
plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws."

[1]
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf)

~~~
DannyBee
It's not aggressive. The case being allowed to proceed is a huge loss for
Apple here. Precedent was clearly on their side, etc.

Speaking as a lawyer, the merits of this one are an almost foregone
conclusion.

(It's possible apple wins - that possibility is very small)

~~~
yxhuvud
Does it set precedence in other similar cases?

------
koolba
Here's the link to the actual ruling:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf)

As a non-lawyer, it's a suprisingly easy read in what seems like plain
English.

> KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINS-BURG,
> BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting
> opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.

The 5-4 split is also interesting with Kavanaugh siding with the liberal
justices.

~~~
asdf21
I'm blown away that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are at ends, it's frankly nice to
see that there will still be diversity of thought on the court.

~~~
duxup
Kavanaugh seems to be interested in diving into the implications and results
of law / decisions.

Gorsuch seems more interested in just the letter of the law, regardless if
that results in absurdities.

~~~
wang_li
Gorsuch's approach is the better one. We have a legislature for a reason.
Letting judges interpret the law so that a given end is achieved leads to
chaos as no one can know what the law means until you've personally been
subjected to lawsuits.

~~~
duxup
I'm pretty skeptical about complaints about when judges "interpret" the law.
No law coverall the circumstances or outcomes that may happen in life or
absurdities that could come from it.

I'm also skeptical about those complaints as they typically just are
translated "this should be read strictly because the outcome is what I want".

~~~
wang_li
Consider DACA. It is not legislation It is an executive order by a prior
president ordering ICE to create a system in which people who meet certain
criteria are given effective amnesty. Obama had no authority to do this beyond
simple prosecutorial discretion. Spending money on administering such a
program without legislative approval, creating non-individualized discretion
decisions, the law does not give the president this power. When the Trump
administration attempted to end the program, at least two judges said no the
program must continue to be operated.

There is no authority by which judges can promote executive orders to the
status of law, and then proceed order that the government spend money on the
program. This was precisely a situation where the judges were uncomfortable
with the outcome so they legislated from the bench.

~~~
duxup
>Obama had no authority to do this beyond simple prosecutorial discretion.

DACA was differed action, it was not amnesty.

>creating non-individualized discretion decisions

Prioritizing deportations and prosecution based on criminal history has been
done for ages, that doesn't seem much different and isn't questioned much at
all...

~~~
wang_li
> DACA was differed action, it was not amnesty.

When was action going to be taken? Under DACA participants can renew every two
years with no limit on how many renewals they can do. That's amnesty.

Regardless, there is nothing in the constitution that says an executive order
cannot be reversed by a later president. The courts acted as if there is and
ordered the continued implementation of DACA.

~~~
duxup
You don't have to set a date for action to be taken... that still isn't
amnesty.

Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can.

The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So
it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the
program.

~~~
wang_li
> You don't have to set a date for action to be taken... that still isn't
> amnesty.

I clearly stated "effective amnesty" in my original post. If the day of action
can be indefinitely put off, then it's effective amnesty.

>Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can.

What is the constitutional basis for a prior president's executive orders
being irreversible by a later president?

>The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So
it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the
program.

What's the constitutional, or statutory, basis for non-citizens who have no
lawful status in the country, to have a right to remain in the country?

~~~
duxup
I feel like you could answer most of your questions by simply reading the
decision(s) related to the DACA case.

You're understanding or at least shifting statements that revolve around this
being purely a case where a president has the right to change course is simply
not the only factor at play.

You seem more concerned about the question of immigration rather than the
actual law / decisions in play.

------
apo
It's not really clear from the article, but the prize here doesn't appear to
be forcing Apple to pay hundreds of millions of dollars of penalties. (The
court didn't even award penalties, but merely cleared the way for end-users to
sue Apple under anti-trust regulations.)

The real prize is forcing Apple to allow users to install software from any
source:

> Apple Inc. v. Robert Pepper is the latest salvo in a legal fight over
> Apple’s iOS App Store. A group of iPhone buyers are claiming that Apple’s
> locked-down ecosystem artificially inflates the prices of apps because all
> developers must go through a single store that takes a cut of their revenue.
> The buyers argue that Apple has established an unlawful monopoly over iOS
> apps, and they’re asking the courts to make Apple allow third-party iOS
> apps, in addition to repaying every iOS user it’s overcharged in the past.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-
ap...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-
pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer)

By extension, any company maintaining a walled garden could be sued for anti-
trust violations by end users. That hasn't been possible until now due to a
previous Supreme Court ruling called "Illinois Brick":

> Arguing for Apple, lawyer Daniel Wall told the justices that the iPhone
> users’ claim is exactly the kind of claim that is prohibited under the
> Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which held
> that only consumers who are direct purchasers of a product can bring a
> lawsuit seeking the triple damages available for violations of federal
> antitrust laws: Here, Wall said, the only theory of damages in the case is
> that Apple charges app developers a 30-percent commission, which in turn
> causes the developers to increase the prices that consumers pay for apps.
> Therefore, Wall argued, it is the app developers, not the iPhone users, who
> are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick.

[https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-
justice...](https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-justices-
poised-to-allow-antitrust-dispute-against-apple-over-apps-to-go-forward/)

~~~
droithomme
Yes, the people saying this is no big deal I think have failed to notice that
SCOTUS just overturned a major previous SCOTUS decision that has stood for
over 40 years and which is going to have a massive influence on a large
category of class action lawsuits in the future. That this is understood to be
an important decision is verified by the stock market response which was to
immediately go into freefall. The reaction was swift and not anticipated in
advance by market uncertainty because this decision was a huge surprise since
no one thought they had the votes, the assumption being that conservative
Kavanaugh would side with the conservative majority on issues of unquestioned
corporate power. This may be an indicator that in many other cases involving
corporations there exists a SCOTUS majority that will be overturning other
past decisions and in general not be automatically deferential to business
interests.

------
scott_s
Reading over the opinion and the dissent
([https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-Supreme-
Cour...](https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-Supreme-Court-
ruling)), I think the crux for the majority is that the customers purchase the
app _through Apple_.

The Illinois Brick ruling prevents "pass-through" claims of damagers. So if I
buy something from Company A, and they bought something from Company B
required to make my item, and Company B is a monopoly, I cannot claim damages
as a "pass-through." Company A has to claim damages. The majority's point is
clear:

 _" 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. Under Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are
direct purchasers from Apple and are proper plaintiffs to maintain this
antitrust suit."_

------
mensetmanusman
Eventually it will be illegal for Apple to prevent competitive app stores.
That will also be the beginning of when Grandma can get viruses again (or
spyware battery apps like on Android).

Not sure the best way to weigh the benefits/risks.

------
djsumdog
Huh. All market places charge this 30% though, right? The Amazon Fire/Music
stores and Google Play all take ~30%. (If you really want to support a band,
BandCamp only takes 15%).

Could this open the floodgates for finally getting rid of ridiculous
commissions for digital works of these digital stores? I don't think
Amazon/Google/Apple will really hurt that much if this becomes the case, and
creators could early quite a bit more for their works.

Or is this case very limited to Apple and their monopoly based on their
control of Apple devices?

~~~
chomp
You can install 3rd party app stores on Android devices.

Apple forces all developers to only use their app store, and then makes them
pay 30%.

------
intopieces
It seems that the Supreme Court only ruled that users can bring the case
against Apple (not only developers), not that Apple’s 30% fee was a case of
monopoly abuse.

~~~
DannyBee
That is true, but that part is an almost foregone conclusion on the merits.

------
rmbryan
Skip the "analysis": [https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-Supreme-
Cour...](https://www.scribd.com/document/409788583/Apple-Supreme-Court-ruling)

------
ihuman
HN submission of the actual rulling:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19899373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19899373)

