"The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both." This in fact not what SCOTUS wrote, SCOTUS clearly said that Apple may be sued by developers and consumers alike, the mere fact that apple has a monopolistic (They hold all the consumer supply in this market) and a monopsonistic(They satisfy all the demand from app devs on this market) position does not mean that the damages injured to both parties are in fact the same damages.

Under current US law multiple parties may not sue for the same damage. But at this point of time it is not decided whether the damages sustained by consumers in this lawsuit would be the same damages that app developers could sue for. It is entirely possible that Apple has swindled BOTH.

I don't understand this argument though. Surely if both app customers and app developers sued Apple they'd be suing over the exact same damages?

Either customers have their prices artificially increased, at which point app developers don't have damages as they're getting the money from customers, or else app developers are keeping prices low and taking the damage themselves, at which point customers aren't harmed.

No, it's the same "root" cause but different kind of damage.

Let's say you burn down a concert hall _with the intention to prevent the concert_. Then you have two different kinds of damages:

- Destroyed Concert Hall => The owner of the hall suing you because you destroyed their property.

- Prevented Concert => The visitors (trying to) sue you for "preventing" the concert.

Sure, in case of the concert I would be surprised if the second case goes anywhere, but then the situation wrt. the app store is way more complex.

It's still the same damages. Apple is taking money from a transaction between users and developers. It effectively comes equally from both sides of the transaction.

It's just like a sales tax, who does it come from, the consumer or the retailer? It really doesn't matter, the effect is the same.

The only problem is if it is accounted for twice. If it adds $10 to a transaction, you can't say both the consumer and developer are each harmed by $10. Better to say each are harmed by $5.

Apple is (allegedly) monopolising a market, which is not the same as skimming a percentage off transactions, and damages do not have to be estimated as a straightforward percentage of all transactions.

A monopoly has structural implications which could disadvantage both customers and developers in ways that go beyond paying x% Apple Tax on each sale.

For example - opportunity costs for both developers and customers, lock-in costs, costs to competitors who might have been able to operate a related market, specific losses for specific developers based on arbitrary, capricious, or self-serving app store exclusions, and so on.

None of this has been proven yet, all of it is debatable, and it could all be included in potential arguments.

This is bad news for Apple - not just because any judgement could be worth tens of billions, but because of potential bad PR and brand damage, which may happen however the final judgement goes. And also because of the distraction from more constructive goals.

The problem with the "monopolizing a market" idea is the fact that "Apple devices" is not a meaningful market, and within the actual "smartphone" market Apple very clearly does not have a monopoly.

Although the US antitrust laws do use the language of monopoly, they are broadly drafted and have been subject to a lot of judicial interpretation. Rather than monopoly, when considering antitrust questions it is sometimes better to think about "market power and … whether business conduct has or likely will have anticompetitive effects." [1]

"Market definition is least useful when market shares would not be strongly probative of market power or anticompetitive effect, while direct evidence as to market power or anticompetitive effect is available and convincing." Apple's control of the App Store has a direct anticompetitive effect in the secondary market for iOS apps. This is pretty clear from the fact that Apple explicitly prohibits some apps that compete with its own. The interesting question is whether the plaintiffs will succeed in proving that Apple's conduct is illegal, under the prevailing interpretation of the US antitrust laws.

[1]: Market definition: an analytical overview (2007). https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?...

Why is "Apple devices" not a separate market when it comes to apps? Apps made for Apple devices can't be used on other devices without changes.

Many apps are available exactly the same on Android as well, and nearly all apps have at least some equivalent on Android. The fact that an iOS app isn't literally compatible with Android, you can't take the exact same binary and use it on an Android phone, doesn't mean that iOS is a separate market category. You may as well say that UPPAbaby strollers are their own market category because UPPAbaby stroller accessories don't work on other strollers.

> You may as well say that UPPAbaby strollers are their own market category because UPPAbaby stroller accessories don't work on other strollers.

I wouldn't say UPPAbaby strollers are their own market, but I would say UPPAbaby stroller accessories are their own market, at least if they have and act on a legal way to prevent all others from making and selling accessories that interact with their strollers.

It's the app market for iPhone users.

And notably Apple locks out some companies from the same kind of integrations that 1P apps get. The only use I have for Safari is that it’s the browser most apps open. And Apple won’t release Siri actions for music, putting Spotify at a big disadvantage.

"iPhone users" isn't a general market category.

Devs need to increase their prices to make a living to account for the 30% Apple tax. Higher prices hurt the consumers who do not want to pay that and shouldn't as the app developers do not even want their customers to pay that. Apple made it so, so it's hurting the customers.

Then again higher prices usually leads to less demand, hurting the devs even more (who will have to either eat the losses, or increase prices even more; goto 1). Apple made it so, so it's hurting the developers.

So Apple is hurting both, customers and developers.

But are app customers also Apple customers? Well, customers give a ton of money to Apple directly. It is comparable to a brick and mortar store where the customer does not actually pay the store, but the landlord of real estate in which the store is housed, who then keeps 30% and kicks over the rest to the actual store owner. And then the landlord claims it has no relationship whatsoever with those customers. Sounds ridiculous to me. Imagine credit card companies said they will no longer do any fraud prevention let alone fraud compensation because because all the money exchanged it between the customer and the vendor (or fraudster).

But it even goes further than this: said hypothetical brick and mortar store is in a company town, so all estate in the town is owned by the same landlord (the company in "company town"). Neither the store owner nor the customers have alternatives to do business in that town without the landlord's involvement. "But you can always move" says the landlord (i.e buy a non-iPhone as a customers and switch to another platform such as Android as a developer)...

Now the question is whether the court will find Apple is abusing their monopoly on "iOS App Stores" or if they are well within their right, because they do not actually have a monopoly as there is more than just iPhones and their App Store in the market.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify this in layman's terms!

Yep absolutely, it would just have to be in different ways.

Apple's argument was that 3rd parties set the prices on their platform not them (app developers), so they shouldn't be held liable for the monopolistic effects this creates.

That is mostly irrelevant to this part of the case, which was about standing. Your parent comment (which is getting downvoted) is correct.

Under previous precedent (Illinois Brick), only app developers would have standing to sue, and that is what apple argued should happen here.

How can this be irrelevant to this part of the case if this is precisely why, as per Apple, end users don't have standing? The court rejects this argument and points out that who sets the prices is actually a technicality, which is less important than who buys from whom.

The parent comment is not talking about standing in a meaningful way. It talks about whether Apple should be "liable for the monopolistic effects"

"liable for the monopolistic effects" != standing. Standing is literally about "who has the right to sue at all".

Not whether they are liable or not. That comes later.

Despite what the Apple lawyers claimed, wouldn't the actual interpretation be: Apple could sue app developers? The developers are the ones "producing the concrete bricks" and Apple is the one "directly purchasing the concrete bricks." By arguing this way for this case, and setting precedent, Apple would have been able to manufacture a loop hole by subsequently using the more accurate interpretation.

It's a very healthy precedent for app stores, regardless.

I don't think this true. Look at your bank statements after a purchase from the App Store. You're not billed by the developer of the app, youre billed directly by Apple, so under Illinois Brick, and users do already have standing (obligatory not a lawyer).

Oh, wow, thanks for pointing this out, not at all clear from the summary of the parent.