The US Supreme court reaffirms the "direct purchaser" rule for private claims under federal antitrust laws, but also allows for monopolization claims against mobile app store owner (Apple / Pepper)

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards.

On May 13, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that private claims under the federal antitrust laws cannot be brought by "indirect purchasers" who did not purchase goods or services directly from the alleged anticompetitive actor(s), an important and longstanding constraint on treble damages claims. In Apple v. Pepper, the Court permitted a putative class of iPhone owners to proceed with their claims that Apple monopolized the aftermarket for iPhone applications ("apps"), allegedly allowing Apple to charge supracompetitive commissions on apps sold through its App Store. Yet in so doing, the Court held by a 5-4 vote that the iPhone owners' claims were not barred by the "direct purchaser" rule first articulated in the Court's Illinois Brick decision, because the iPhone owners

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Clifford Chance (Washington D.C.)

Quotation

Sharis A. Pozen, The US Supreme court reaffirms the "direct purchaser" rule for private claims under federal antitrust laws, but also allows for monopolization claims against mobile app store owner (Apple / Pepper), 13 May 2019, e-Competitions May 2019, Art. N° 96927

Visites 25

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues