What’s Next in Apple v. Pepper? The Indirect Purchaser Rule and the Economics of Pass-Through
By Bruce H. Kobayashi & Joshua D. Wright (George Mason University)
In Apple v. Pepper, the Supreme Court issued a narrow 5-4 decision holding that iPhone users who purchased apps from the Apple App Store were direct purchasers. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, held that the iPhone users had standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for alleged monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The dissent, written by Justice Gorsuch, concluded that the iPhone users were direct purchasers of distribution services provided by Apple, and thus relied on a “pass-on” theory to recover damages from Apple. On remand, the plaintiffs will have to show that they were harmed by Apple’s ad valorem royalty rate. Our analysis demonstrates that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail because they have not been harmed by Apple’s ad valorem rate. We also explain that the Supreme Court correctly accepted the plaintiff’s alleged market definition at the motion to dismiss stage, and therefore did not abandon its ruling in American Express.
Featured News
K&L Gates Expands Antitrust Practice with New Partners
May 15, 2024 by
CPI
Polish Regulators Probe PS Store and Steam for Antitrust Violations
May 15, 2024 by
CPI
French Regulator Meat-Cutting Sector Case Following Antitrust Review
May 15, 2024 by
CPI
Arizona Attorney General Files Suit Against Amazon Over Unfair Business Practices
May 15, 2024 by
CPI
Varsity Spirit and Private Equity Owners Settle Class Action Antitrust Suit
May 15, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI