Apple Inc. v. Pepper
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 13, 2019 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- May 13, 2019
- Term
- October Term 2018
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Kavanaugh
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court. In 2007, Apple started selling iPhones. The next year, Apple launched the retail App Store, an electronic store where iPhone owners can purchase iPhone applications from Apple. Those "apps" enable iPhone owners to send messages, take photos, watch videos, buy clothes, order food, arrange transportation, purchase concert tickets, donate to charities, and the list goes on. "There's an app for that" has become part of the 21st-century American lexicon. In this case, however, several consumers contend that Apple charges too much for apps. The consumers argue, in particular, that Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to charge consumers higher-than-competitive prices. A claim that a monopolistic retailer (here, Apple) has used its monopoly to overcharge consumers is a classic antitrust claim. But Apple asserts that the consumer-plaintiffs in this case may not sue Apple because they supposedly were not "direct purchasers" from Apple under our decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois , 431 U.S. 720, 745-746, 97 S.Ct. 2061, 52 L.Ed.2d 707 (1977). We disagree. The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick . At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs'…
Excerpt of a 46,982-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.