- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Apple's Appeal Denied: U.S. Court Upholds Class Action Alleging iPhone App Monopoly
Apple's Appeal Denied: U.S. Court Upholds Class Action Alleging iPhone App Monopoly
Apple's attempt to halt a class action accusing them of monopolizing the iPhone app market and inflating prices for millions of customers has been denied by a U.S. appeals court. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined Apple's request for a pretrial appeal, following a California federal judge's decision in February to permit consumers to unite in pursuing billions of dollars in potential damages.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers certified a class of consumers who have spent $10 or more on Apple app or in-app purchases since 2008. The lawsuit, initiated in 2011, alleges that Apple violated U.S. antitrust laws by imposing strict controls on how customers download apps.
Apple and the plaintiffs' attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday. The appeals court panel denied Apple's appeal without a hearing.
Apple contended that Judge Rogers' order unfairly allowed at least 10 million App Store accounts to be included in the case without demonstrating how the account-holders were harmed.
The attorneys representing Apple customers urged the 9th Circuit not to hear the case, asserting that Judge Rogers adhered to previous rulings in her decision to grant class status.
Apple drew a comparison to a Google class-action involving 21 million consumers, which the 9th Circuit announced last year it would review. However, the appeals court never made a ruling in the Google case, as the trial judge indicated he would reverse his decision to approve the class action.
Earlier this year, the Apple plaintiffs expressed frustration in a court filing, stating that their case has endured numerous delays due to Apple's aggressive and misguided litigation strategies.
Both parties have proposed a potential trial timeframe for 2026.
Separately, in March, the U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Apple in a New Jersey Federal Court, accusing the company of monopolizing the smartphone market. Apple has refuted these allegations and intends to request a judge to dismiss the lawsuit.
The case is titled "In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation" and is being heard in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals under case number 24-875.