Friday , November 27 2020

Apple headed to US court this week during an App Store battle for monopoly abuse – Technology News, Firstpost



apple will head to the US Supreme Court this week to block a group of clients who want to blame the technology giant for monopoly abuse, media reported.

The company is struggling with a group of iPhone owners who claim that Apple is forcing them to pay for apps, banning its bill-dollar app store competitors.

After consumers won the right to start a lawsuit against the company in 2017, Apple appealed to the Supreme Court to cancel the decision, The Telegraph reported at the end of November 24.

Representative image. Reuters.

Representative image. Reuters.

If Apple failed, the business model of App Store, one of the company's fastest growing and most profitable divisions, could be threatened, he added.

Apple makes billions every year, taking a 30% reduction of apps sold through the App Store, created by developers. Application revenue grew by about a third in 2017 to $ 38.5 billion, even on iPhone and IPads stagnation.

Customers say that its significant commission is proof that the company is using its monopoly position vis-à-vis iPhone users. They claim that "iPhone users nationwide have paid (Apple) hundreds of millions of dollars more for iPhone applications than they would have paid in a competitive market."

Apple is trying to reject the case by addressing the 1977 Supreme Court ruling that only "direct buyers" can seek redress for antitrust violations.

The company claims that app developers themselves determine the price of apps in the App Store rather than Apple, iPhone users are buying apps directly from developers.

His opponents claim that since Apple sets the rules for the App Store, such as the minimum price, it effectively sells apps to users.

The Supreme Court must hear Monday's arguments, although it is likely to take months before the judges declare a decision.

If Apple fails to reverse the previous decision, the company will likely face years of legal disputes in a case dating back to 2011.


Source link