Apple went to US court this week due to a battle on the App Store for monopoly abuse – Technology News, Firstpost



[ad_1]

Apple It will address the US Supreme Court this week to prevent a group of clients from suing the technology giant for monopoly abuse, media reports said.

The company is struggling with a group of iPhone owners who say that Apple compels them to pay more for apps by forbidding rivals to buy the billion dollar App Store.

After customers won the right to file a class action lawsuit against the company in 2017, Apple is now calling on the Supreme Court to have the decision revoked, The telegraph reported at the end of November 24.

Representational image. Reuters.

Representational image. Reuters.

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

Apple earns billions each year with a cut of 30% of App Store apps created by developers. App revenue grew about a third in 2017 to $ 38.5 billion, even as sales of Apple iPhones and iPhones iPads stopped.

Customers argue that their handsome commission is proof that the company is exploiting its monopoly position on iPhone users. They argue that "iPhone consumers across the country have paid (to Apple) hundreds of millions of dollars more for iPhone apps than they would have paid in a competitive market."

Apple is trying to dismiss the case, calling for a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that only "direct buyers" can claim compensation for antitrust abuse.

The company argues that since app developers themselves price the apps on the App Store rather than Apple, iPhone users are getting apps directly from developers.

His opponents claim that because Apple sets the rules of the App Store, as the minimum price, it is effectively selling the apps to the users.

The Supreme Court should hear the arguments on Monday, although it is likely to take months before its judges announce any decision.

If Apple can not reverse the previous decision, the company is likely to face years of litigation in a case dating back to 2011.

[ad_2]

Source link