Apple Inc. v. Pepper
United States Supreme Court
139 S. Ct. 1514, 587 U.S. __, 203 L.Ed.2d 802 (2019)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
In 2008 Apple Inc. (defendant) launched its App Store, an electronic store where iPhone owners could purchase iPhone applications, also known as apps. Apps for the App Store were created by independent developers. The developers set the retail prices at which their apps would be sold through the App Store. Apple required all apps to have sale prices ending in $0.99 and received a 30 percent commission on each app sold. In 2011 four iPhone owners (collectively, the consumers) (plaintiffs) sued Apple under § 4 of the Clayton Act, alleging that Apple monopolized the market for the sale of apps and used its monopoly power to charge customers noncompetitive prices in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. Apple moved to dismiss the case, claiming that the consumers were not direct purchasers from Apple. Apple cited Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), in which the United States Supreme Court held that indirect purchasers may not sue a seller under antitrust laws. Apple argued that under Illinois Brick, a customer could only sue the company that set the retail price for the good or service. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the consumers were direct purchasers of apps from Apple and therefore could sue Apple for its alleged antitrust violations. Apple appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kavanaugh, J.)
Dissent (Gorsuch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.