Apple is recently involved in an antitrust case that was started by a group of iPhone users known as Apple Inc. v. Pepper which suggests that the company violated antitrust laws by making the App Store a monopoly ecosystem.
The group of iPhone users were led by a man called Robert Pepper hence the case’s name, and if they get to sue Apple, Apple would have to pay three times the estimated damages.
Apple charges its app developers a commission of 30%, which the plaintiffs (the iPhone users) believe to lead to the app prices being pricier, and it is because Apple has the monopoly power hence they can charge the amount of commission.
According to CNBC, in most cases that come before the Supreme Court whereby one of the parties is a corporation, the corporation parties will usually triumph, and in a previous case known as Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, it was concluded that you can only sue for an antitrust case if you’re the direct purchaser of the products or services. In this case, because app developers are the direct party instead of Apple, the plaintiffs should not be able to sue the company.
However, the plaintiffs are stating that Apple has monopolised app distributions instead of apps, which is true because iOS users cannot purchase software from third party marketplace, unlike Android users who can purchase from third party stores besides Google Play Store.
Currently the justices are actually contemplating whether the plaintiffs can even bring the antitrust case, and even if they can, it is unsure if they can win the case. However, it was reported that the justices are leaning against Apple’s arguments on the case so if the plaintiffs can really win the case, Apple will be greatly penalised, which can greatly affect the company.