Jacob Mitchell
A group of consumers sued Apple in 2011 alleging that Apple had violated antitrust laws through their monopolization of their App Store. In trying to dismiss the suit, Apple asserted that consumers, despite purchasing apps directly from Apple through the App Store, did not have standing to sue them as monopolists because the consumers were actually buying from the app developers. The Supreme Court rejected Apple’s argument in its 2019 ruling in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper. By rejecting Apple’s view, the Supreme Court has expanded consumers’ available remedies by clarifying that consumers that buy directly from a distributor are direct purchasers for the purposes of the Illinois Brick test. The long-standing Illinois Brick rule allows only direct purchasers to sue monopolists. The Apple decision signals a shift in the Court’s view on antitrust litigation to being more pro-consumer. It also exposes many e-commerce businesses to litigation. These businesses were previously understood to be insulated from litigation based on the rule’s prior application and use. Particularly at risk appears to be e-commerce businesses that operate “digital marketplaces” and directly process payments.