Apple Denies Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit

A US class action lawsuit against Apple over third-party app restrictions has been thwarted as a judge doubts the plaintiffs’ right to bring the case.

Proposed class action lawsuit against tech giant Apple hindered competition in the third-party app market, was dismissed after a judge ruled that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to bring an antitrust lawsuit.

In a ruling issued yesterday (July 11) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs’ alleged harm as a result of Apple’s anticompetitive conduct was too indirect and that they failed to meet the requirements for an injunction.

Suitcase, Bakay vs Apple — first filed in court in January — stemmed from claims that Apple had agreements with various web browsers that prevented third-party apps from entering the market.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs – Luisa Bakay, Elisa Jones and Leticia Shaw – are direct purchasers of Apple’s iPhone.

To access third-party apps, users typically have to choose between the two major mobile ecosystems, iOS or Android. The plaintiffs claim that Apple has restricted other players from accessing that ecosystem, and they also allege that the tech giant’s WebKit agreement with browser makers like Google prevented other smartphone operating system (SOS) competitors from entering the fray, making it harder for them to compete and forcing plaintiffs to pay “super competitive prices” for their iPhones. WebKit is Apple’s own browser engine.

However, the plaintiffs failed to convince the court that Apple’s practices caused them actual and direct harm. The judge noted that “the examples presented by Apple actually raise doubts about whether plaintiffs constitute the proper class of injured parties to bring this case,” adding that “the harm and the alleged misconduct are significantly distinct.”

The judge ultimately found that the class members lacked Article III or antitrust status. Under Article III, a party must have “actual, concrete harm, credibly proven to the defendant, which is capable of being remedied by a favorable decision,” while legal capacity under antitrust law affects a party’s ability to pursue claims.

Although the three maintained that they constituted a proper group to bring the lawsuit, arguing that only iPhone buyers could seek damages for the iPhone’s overpricing, the judge rejected those arguments.

The plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Brian Dunne AND Yavar Bathaeepartners in Bathaee Dunne represented the plaintiff, while Apple was represented by Cynthia Richman, Daniel Swanson AND Julian Kleinbrodtpartners in Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.

Recently, the big tech industry has been hit by an avalanche of lawsuits, Amazon standing face to face with audiobook authors class action lawsuit in United States, AND The value of the collective UK opt-out action is £1 billion and the value of the subsequent UK opt-out action is estimated to be around £2.5 billion.

In March, Apple was fined just under €2 billion. By European Commission above restrictive rules governing the App Store, with regulators accusing the company of trying to maintain a dominant market position in the music streaming sector.