| Apple Inc. v. Pepper | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 26, 2018 Decided May 13, 2019 | |
| Full case name | Apple Inc. v. Pepper, et al. |
| Docket no. | 17-204 |
| Citations | 587 U.S. ___ (more) 139 S. Ct. 1514; 203 L. Ed. 2d 802 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss granted, In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013); reversed, In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig. (Pepper v. Apple Inc.), 846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2647 (2018). |
| Holding | |
| Under Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners were direct purchasers who may sue Apple for alleged monopolization. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kavanaugh, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Clayton Act | |
Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers.[1] The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.