APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL. (2019)

Introduction In Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that consumers who purchase apps from Apple's App Store cannot sue Apple under the Illinois Brick doctrine. The Illinois Brick doctrine prevents indirect purchasers from bringing antitrust claims unless the direct purchaser has already sued and obtained a judgment. Summary of the Case The case arose out of a dispute between Apple and Pepper, a developer who created an app called "Opener." Opener allowed users to open links from outside of the App Store, which Apple prohibited. Pepper sued Apple under the antitrust laws, alleging that Apple's App Store monopoly prevented him from competing effectively. Issues Before the Court The Supreme Court was asked to decide two questions:

1. Whether the Illinois Brick doctrine applies to antitrust claims brought by indirect purchasers.
2. Whether Apple's App Store is a "single seller" for purposes of the Illinois Brick doctrine.

Court's Ruling The Supreme Court held that the Illinois Brick doctrine applies to antitrust claims brought by indirect purchasers. The Court reasoned that the doctrine is based on the principle that indirect purchasers should not be able to recover damages that they have not themselves suffered. The Court also held that Apple's App Store is a "single seller" for purposes of the Illinois Brick doctrine. The Court reasoned that Apple has complete control over the App Store, and that it is therefore the only seller of apps to iPhone users. Implications of the Ruling The implications of the Supreme Court's ruling are significant. The ruling prevents consumers from suing Apple under the antitrust laws for alleged anticompetitive conduct in the App Store. This means that Apple is essentially immune from antitrust liability for its actions in the App Store. The ruling also has implications for other industries where there is a dominant player. For example, the ruling could prevent consumers from suing Google under the antitrust laws for alleged anticompetitive conduct in the Google Play Store. Opinion I believe that the Supreme Court's ruling in Apple Inc. v. Pepper was the correct one. The Illinois Brick doctrine is a well-established principle of antitrust law, and it serves an important purpose. The doctrine prevents indirect purchasers from recovering damages that they have not themselves suffered. This is important because it protects businesses from being held liable for the actions of their customers. In the case of Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the Supreme Court found that Apple's App Store is a "single seller" for purposes of the Illinois Brick doctrine. This means that Apple is the only seller of apps to iPhone users. This finding is consistent with the reality of the App Store market. Apple has complete control over the App Store, and it is therefore the only way for iPhone users to download apps. The Supreme Court's ruling in Apple Inc. v. Pepper is a significant victory for Apple. The ruling prevents consumers from suing Apple under the antitrust laws for alleged anticompetitive conduct in the App Store. This means that Apple is essentially immune from antitrust liability for its actions in the App Store. Conclusion In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in Apple Inc. v. Pepper was the correct one. The ruling is consistent with the Illinois Brick doctrine, and it protects businesses from being held liable for the actions of their customers. The ruling is also a significant victory for Apple, as it prevents consumers from suing Apple under the antitrust laws for alleged anticompetitive conduct in the App Store.

Sample Solution