“That is why we have antitrust law,” Kavanaugh wrote. The court’s four liberal justices joined Kavanaugh in the 5-4 decision.
“It definitely should make tech companies wonder how the antitrust laws will be applied going forward in an online platform environment,” said Kimmelman.
The case stems from a 2011 class-action suit by iPhone owners alleging that by taking a 30% cut of app sales, Apple has encouraged app developers to raise their prices in response. Consumers have been harmed by the practice, the suit claimed, because Apple does not allow customers to download apps from any other source other than the iTunes App Store. Unlike Android, iOS customers can only get apps from that official source, which Apple says serves as kind of quality control to weed out security threats and apps that violate the company’s terms of service.
Had Apple been allowed to set the terms of the legal fight, the court said, it would have hindered the ability of consumers to seek relief from alleged monopolists.
“Apple’s line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits,” the opinion said.
The company did not respond to a request for comment.
Antitrust experts also welcomed the Court’s reasoning that allowing Apple to avoid the class-action suit “would provide a roadmap” for others to evade the law.
“A victory for antitrust enforcement!” tweeted Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy at Open Markets, a think tank that has criticized the tech industry as being too powerful and concentrated.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the customers’ likelihood of success — only that they have the right to sue. Apple argued that it was not a monopoly, rather a platform for app developers who can set their own prices. It has said that if the court allowed the case to proceed, it would disrupt the e-commerce market.
— CNN’s Ariane de Vogue and Steve Vladeck contributed to this report