iPhone Users Get Court Nod to Sue Apple for App Store Monopoly

Advertisement
By Reuters | Updated: 13 January 2017 10:16 IST
Highlights
  • Lawsuit was originally filed in 2012
  • A group of iPhone users sued saying Apple's practice was anti-competitive
  • Courts have yet to address the substance of the iPhone users' allegations

iPhone app purchasers may sue Apple Inc over allegations that the company monopolized the market for iPhone apps by not allowing users to purchase them outside the App Store, leading to higher prices, a US appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling revives a long-simmering legal challenge originally filed in 2012 taking aim at Apple's practice of only allowing iPhones to run apps purchased from its own App Store. A group of iPhone users sued saying the Cupertino, California, company's practice was anti-competitive.

Advertisement

Apple had argued that users did not have standing to sue it because they purchased apps from developers, with Apple simply renting out space to those developers. Developers pay a cut of their revenues to Apple in exchange for the right to sell in the App Store.

A lower court sided with Apple, but Judge William A. Fletcher ruled that iPhone users purchase apps directly from Apple, which gives iPhone users the right to bring a legal challenge against Apple.

Advertisement

Apple declined to comment.

The courts have yet to address the substance of the iPhone users' allegations; up this point, the wrangling has been over whether they have the right to sue Apple in the first place.

Advertisement

But if the challenge ultimately succeeds, "the obvious solution is to compel Apple to let people shop for applications wherever they want, which would open the market and help lower prices," Mark C. Rifkin, an attorney with Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz representing the group of iPhone users, told Reuters in an interview. "The other alternative is for Apple to pay people damages for the higher than competitive prices they've had to pay historically because Apple has utilized its monopoly."

The case is Pepper et al v. Apple Inc., case number 4:11-cv-06714 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Advertisement

© Thomson Reuters 2016

 

Get your daily dose of tech news, reviews, and insights, in under 80 characters on Gadgets 360 Turbo. Connect with fellow tech lovers on our Forum. Follow us on X, Facebook, WhatsApp, Threads and Google News for instant updates. Catch all the action on our YouTube channel.

Advertisement

Related Stories

Popular Mobile Brands
  1. These OnePlus Smartphones Could Receive the ColorOS 17 Update in India
  2. Redmi Note 17 Pro Max Listed on NBTC Website Ahead of Imminent Launch
  3. OnePlus N6x Design, Colour Options Teased Ahead of India Launch
  4. Redmi Note 17 India Launch Timeline, Key Specifications Leaked
  5. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra Could Cost More Than Expected, Listing Suggests
  1. Offline UPI Payments With NFC Support Could Launch in India Soon
  2. Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra's Privacy Display Feature Gets a Major Upgrade in One UI 9 Beta
  3. OnePlus N6x Design, Colour Options Teased in New Marketing Material Ahead of Imminent Launch in India
  4. OnePlus 11, Nord 4, and Newer Models Tipped to Receive the Android 17-Based ColorOS 17 Update in India
  5. Redmi Note 17 Pro Max Appears on Thailand's NBTC Certification Database, Might Launch Soon
  6. Apple’s First Foldable iPhone Reportedly Appears in iOS 27 Beta Code With a Multi-Battery Setup
  7. X for Android App Undergoes Major Design Overhaul, Enhanced Performance and Reliability
  8. Samsung Galaxy Buds Able to Reportedly Skip Galaxy Unpacked Launch; Could Debut in October
  9. Dell Alienware 16X Aurora, Alienware 16 Area-51 and Alienware 18 Area-51 Launched in India: Price, Specifications
  10. Samsung Galaxy A55, Galaxy A35 One UI 9 Test Builds Reportedly Spotted Ahead of Android 17 Rollout
Download Our Apps
Available in Hindi
© Copyright Red Pixels Ventures Limited 2026. All rights reserved.