Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring legal issues in the news, brought to you by American Arbitration Association. Business disputes are inevitable, resolve faster with the American Arbitration Association, the global leader and alternative dispute resolution for over eighty five years. More at a dr dot org and today Bloombergy, Lahosting, Grosso and Michael Best discuss a case against Apple like using the iPhone maker
of monopolizing the app store. They speak with Mark Rifkin, a partner at Wolf Hathenstein and Harry First, our professor at n y U Law School. Mark explain the issue
at this stage of the proceedings. Sure of the question that we appealed was the district courts determination that consumers who bought their apps on the iPhone store as they were required to do, and paid Apple with their credit card as they were required to do, whether they were direct purchasers from Apple with standing under the federal any trust laws. To bring the lawsuit challenging fee that Apple tax onto the cost of the apps on the app store.
The district court said that the consumers were indirect purchasers and didn't have standing, and we disagreed. We asked the Ninth Circuit to correct that decision. So, Harry, what did the ninth circuits say about this issue? Well, basically, the Ninth Circuit said, go ahead, Um, you have standing to sue your direct purchaser from Apple through the App Store. Do you believe they have standing? That seems to me
to be the right decision. Um. I think it's important that consumers have the ability to challenge um these restrictions on their freedom to buy the products they want at the price they want. So, Um, if the plaintiffs can prevail, they will be able to show that they have been charged more than they should have for the applications they like to buy. So Mark has been no ruling about the allegations themselves. Tell us about the allegations, sure, the
The basic allegation is that Apple controls the medium of distribution. Technologically, it makes iPhones only compatible with applications that are sold through the App Store, and it requires that developers who want to sell apps through the App Store have to agree to this markup that Apple imposes on all the apps that are sold for a price on the App Store,
and the point of say that's anti competitive. It's the result of Apple's monopoly, and uh, they're entitled to some portion of that back because Apple would not be able to charge that fee were it not for their monopoly
control over the distribution channel. And as Mark Rifkin, a partner at Wolf having Stein and Harry First, a professor at n y U Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Laho student Grasso and Michael Best, and you can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio, and that is this morning is Bloomberg Law Brief. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg
Law dot com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg b NA dot com for more information