Update: An Apple spokesperson provided 9to5Mac with the following statement regarding today’s decision:
“We’re pleased the Court recognized the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the alleged harm to consumers and decertified the class. We continue to invest significantly to make the App Store a safe and trusted place for users to discover apps and a great business opportunity for developers.”
Last year, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers gave the go-ahead to a class action accusing Apple of monopolizing the iPhone app market. Today, she reversed that decision. Here are the details.
’Alarming’ errors lead to class action decertification
This case is particularly complex, as some aspects of it date back to the release of the original iPhone. But in a nutshell, the overall argument should be very familiar at this point: Apple allegedly maintains a monopoly over iOS app distribution by forcing users to purchase apps exclusively through the App Store, leading to higher prices.
After years of procedural back-and-forth, including multiple motions, appeals, and the consolidation of overlapping antitrust complaints, the case ultimately landed before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who declined in 2022 to certify it as a class action.
Then, in 2024, she reversed her own decision, once the scope “was narrowed to include only Apple account holders who spent $10 or more on app or in-app content,” as Reuters reported at the time.
Today, however, she reversed her decision yet again, following Apple’s successful challenge to the plaintiffs’ damages model, which the company argued had multiple errors and was incapable of showing classwide harm.
From Reuters:
Rogers said the plaintiffs failed to provide a model “capable of reliably showing classwide injury and damages in one stroke” by matching Apple accounts to consumers, while limiting the number of “unharmed” consumers in the class.
She ruled after an expert hired by Apple found “alarming” errors in the plaintiffs’ model.
These included that named plaintiff Robert Pepper and supposed claimant “Rob Pepper” were different people despite sharing home addresses and credit card information.
They also included the lumping together of more than 40,000 payment records for people whose first name was “Kim,” but who otherwise had nothing in common.
When asked about today’s decision, a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team said they were “of course disappointed” and would review their next steps. Apple did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment.
Accessory deals on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
