![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2023\/08\/social-media-580x387.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2023\/08\/social-media-scaled.jpg\")
<\/div>\nA federal judge decertified on Monday a class action by tens of millions of Apple customers who accused the company of monopolizing the market for iPhone apps by banning purchases outside its App Store, leading to higher prices.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, reversed her February 2024 class certification ruling, which let Apple account holders who spent $10 or more on app or in-app content within the last 17 years sue as a group.<\/p>\n
In decertifying the class, Rogers said the plaintiffs failed to provide a model \u201ccapable of reliably showing classwide injury and damages in one stroke\u201d by matching Apple accounts to consumers, while limiting the number of \u201cunharmed\u201d consumers in the class.<\/p>\n
She ruled after an expert hired by Cupertino, California-based Apple found \u201calarming\u201d errors in the plaintiffs\u2019 model.<\/p>\n
These included one that named plaintiff Robert Pepper and supposed claimant \u201cRob Pepper\u201d were different people despite sharing home addresses and credit card information.<\/p>\n
They also included the lumping together of more than 40,000 payment records for people whose first name was \u201cKim,\u201d but who otherwise had nothing in common.<\/p>\n
DISAPPOINTED PLAINTIFFS TO REVIEW NEXT STEPS<\/p>\n
Mark Rifkin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email \u201cwe are of course disappointed\u201d with the decision, and are reviewing their next legal steps to protect consumers \u201charmed by Apple\u2019s unlawful App Store monopoly.\u201d<\/p>\n
Apple said it was pleased with the decision, and that it invests \u201csignificantly\u201d to make the App Store \u201ca safe and trusted place for users to discover apps and a great business opportunity for developers.\u201d<\/p>\n
Class actions can result in greater recoveries at less cost than if plaintiffs sue individually.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs said Apple\u2019s monopoly included charging excessive commissions to app developers, which would be passed on to consumers through higher prices to download apps or make in-app purchases.<\/p>\n
Lawyers for the plaintiffs had estimated that classwide damages could total billions of dollars.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit began in December 2011, and the class had covered users of iOS-powered devices since July 10, 2008.<\/p>\n
The case is In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-06714.<\/p>\n
Topics<\/span> Lawsuits<\/a> Legislation<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Was this article valuable?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n