The Supreme Court will hear the case on Monday after it was revived by the ninth circuit court a year ago.
The company released a statement Monday in which it heralded the App Store for fueling "competition and growth in app development, leading to millions of jobs in the new app economy and facilitating more than $100 billion in payments to developers worldwide". Apple, of course, argues that the plaintiffs shouldn't be allowed to sue it over the app sales because Apple says it isn't selling the apps directly to consumers, it's just passing them along from the developers as a kind of middle man.
Apple is officially off to the Supreme Court today to fight an antitrust case that claims the App Store operates as a monopoly.
Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama, seemed to side with those who say that consumers have a direct relationship with Apple when they buy apps through the App Store. But the plaintiffs appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that they had standing to sue Apple. Its argument: the company is merely providing a marketplace for the apps. That group said the customer "is unequivocally buying from the app developer, not the platform the developer sold their app through". "I've engaged in a one-step transaction with Apple", she said.
This is against a group of iPhone owners who claim Apple forces them to overpay for apps by forbidding rivals to the App Store.
Apple told the court in an appeal that the outcome of this lawsuit could affect e-commerce venues such as Google Shopping, Amazon and Facebook's marketplace. However, the plaintiffs are backed by the attorneys general of 30 states including California, Texas, Florida and NY.
Trump sticks with old playbook in return to campaign trail
Jones, the CEO of Public Religion Research Institute, a nonprofit group that uses polling to study politics, religion and culture. The donation was made Friday, after Hyde-Smith had already come under fire for controversial comments made on the campaign trail.
The iPhone users, including lead plaintiff Robert Pepper of Chicago, have argued that Apple's monopoly leads to inflated prices compared to if apps were available from other sources.
So as Apple sees it, even if the App Store amounted to an illegal monopoly - and the company insists it isn't - only the app developers could sue, because they're the actual buyers of Apple's distribution service.
Apple is being accused of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the way applications are installed on the iPhone.
In 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California dismissed the lawsuit.
But the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case previous year, finding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.
A decision in Apple Inc. v Pepper, 17-204, is expected by late spring.