July 16, 2019
The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday refused to reassign a proposed class action from consumers alleging Apple Inc. monopolizes the App Store market as the case returns from a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court.
July 09, 2019
Consumers defended their request for a new judge to oversee their proposed class action alleging Apple Inc. monopolizes the iPhone app market, arguing Monday that the presiding judge expressed "clear frustration" with their cases and likely won't follow the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on remand.
July 02, 2019
As it gears up to defend against iPhone users' antitrust claims recently revived by the U.S. Supreme Court, Apple insisted the same California federal judge who originally axed the suit must stay on, arguing Monday that the consumers' reasons for seeking a new judge are flimsy.
June 20, 2019
IPhone users heading back to district court say they want to start fresh with a new judge after the U.S. Supreme Court last month permitted them to bring antitrust claims against Apple Inc.
March 01, 2017
Consumers who bought apps from Apple's App Store asked the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday not to revisit its decision to revive a suit claiming the electronics giant monopolizes the market for iPhone apps, arguing the appeals court's published opinion relied on well-established case law.
January 27, 2017
Apple asked the Ninth Circuit on Friday to reconsider a published decision that revived a suit claiming that the tech giant monopolizes the market for iPhone apps, arguing in its petition that the panel hadn't properly considered whether the consumer class could allege that they were directly harmed by distribution fees.
January 12, 2017
The Ninth Circuit on Thursday revived a suit accusing Apple Inc. of illegally monopolizing the market for iPhone apps, ruling that the phone maker is a distributor from which the buyers directly purchase services in a published decision that split from the Eighth Circuit.
February 10, 2016
Apple Inc. told a skeptical Ninth Circuit on Wednesday that a California federal judge correctly tossed a putative class action alleging it illegally monopolized the market for iPhone apps, arguing a 30 percent commission that app developers pay to Apple is part of a price that developers set independently.