Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 JANUARY 2019

Potential Outcomes Of ‘Apple v. Pepper'

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contributor
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden has become a go-to firm in the German legal market since opening our doors in Frankfurt in...

View firm profile
Explore more from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

On Nov. 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a potentially landmark antitrust case: Apple v. Pepper, 846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2647 (2018) (No. 17-204)

United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law

On Nov. 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a potentially landmark antitrust case: Apple v. Pepper, 846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2647 (2018) (No. 17-204). Respondents Pepper and a putative class of similarly situated iPhone owners are suing Apple for monopolizing, or attempting to monopolize, the market for iPhone applications ("apps"). Respondents seek treble damages under §4 of the Clayton Act. In 2013, the Northern District of California granted Apple's motion to dismiss the case, concluding that "any injury to plaintiffs is an indirect effect resulting from the software developers' own costs," and thus the plaintiffs were barred from bringing suit under the Illinois Brick doctrine. In 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiffs are direct purchasers and therefore have standing to sue. In June 2018, the Supreme Court granted Apple's petition for writ of certiorari.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from