Following U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ reversal of her own certification of a class action suit accusing Apple of monopolizing the iPhone app market, the case was put back in play today. Here are the details.
A quick recap
In 2022, following a convoluted process that included multiple motions, appeals, and the consolidation of overlapping antitrust complaints, the case In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation landed on the desk of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
Initially, she declined to certify it as a class action. Two years later, she reversed that decision, giving it the go-ahead under a narrower scope, including “only Apple account holders who spent $10 or more on app or in-app content,” as Reuters reported at the time.
Last October, following Apple’s challenge to the plaintiffs’ damages model, Judge Rogers again reversed her decision and decertified the class action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present a model “capable of reliably showing classwide injury and damages in one stroke.”
At the time, the plaintiffs’ legal team said that they would review their next steps. Soon after, they filed a petition seeking permission to appeal, which brings us to today.
Antitrust case back in play
As reported by Reuters, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal.
In practice, this means that the appeals court will now review Judge Rogers’ decision to decertify the class action, which could either reinstate the lawsuit as a class action, send it back to her for further analysis, or uphold her decision.
According to today’s decision, the appeal will proceed under Rule 23(f), meaning the Ninth Circuit will review only the class certification ruling (rather than the underlying antitrust allegations against Apple). Now, the plaintiffs have 14 days to formally move the appeal forward.
In a statement to Reuters, Mark Rifkin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that they “look forward to briefing and arguing the merits of the appeal in the Ninth Circuit.” Apple, on the other hand, didn’t respond to Reuters’ request for comment.
Accessory deals on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
