Speaker 1: Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news, brought to you by
Speaker 1: American Arbitration Association. Business disputes are inevitable, resolve faster with
Speaker 1: the American Arbitration Association, the global leader and alternative dispute
Speaker 1: resolution for over eighty five years. More at a dr
Speaker 1: dot org and today Bloombergy, Lahosting, Grosso and Michael Best
Speaker 1: discuss a case against Apple like using the iPhone maker
Speaker 1: of monopolizing the app store. They speak with Mark Rifkin,
Speaker 1: a partner at Wolf Hathenstein and Harry First, our professor
Speaker 1: at n y U Law School. Mark explain the issue
Speaker 1: at this stage of the proceedings. Sure of the question
Speaker 1: that we appealed was the district courts determination that consumers
Speaker 1: who bought their apps on the iPhone store as they
Speaker 1: were required to do, and paid Apple with their credit
Speaker 1: card as they were required to do, whether they were
Speaker 1: direct purchasers from Apple with standing under the federal any
Speaker 1: trust laws. To bring the lawsuit challenging fee that Apple
Speaker 1: tax onto the cost of the apps on the app store.
Speaker 1: The district court said that the consumers were indirect purchasers
Speaker 1: and didn't have standing, and we disagreed. We asked the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit to correct that decision. So, Harry, what did
Speaker 1: the ninth circuits say about this issue? Well, basically, the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit said, go ahead, Um, you have standing to
Speaker 1: sue your direct purchaser from Apple through the App Store.
Speaker 1: Do you believe they have standing? That seems to me
Speaker 1: to be the right decision. Um. I think it's important
Speaker 1: that consumers have the ability to challenge um these restrictions
Speaker 1: on their freedom to buy the products they want at
Speaker 1: the price they want. So, Um, if the plaintiffs can prevail,
Speaker 1: they will be able to show that they have been
Speaker 1: charged more than they should have for the applications they
Speaker 1: like to buy. So Mark has been no ruling about
Speaker 1: the allegations themselves. Tell us about the allegations, sure, the
Speaker 1: The basic allegation is that Apple controls the medium of distribution. Technologically,
Speaker 1: it makes iPhones only compatible with applications that are sold
Speaker 1: through the App Store, and it requires that developers who
Speaker 1: want to sell apps through the App Store have to
Speaker 1: agree to this markup that Apple imposes on all the
Speaker 1: apps that are sold for a price on the App Store,
Speaker 1: and the point of say that's anti competitive. It's the
Speaker 1: result of Apple's monopoly, and uh, they're entitled to some
Speaker 1: portion of that back because Apple would not be able
Speaker 1: to charge that fee were it not for their monopoly
Speaker 1: control over the distribution channel. And as Mark Rifkin, a
Speaker 1: partner at Wolf having Stein and Harry First, a professor
Speaker 1: at n y U Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Laho
Speaker 1: student Grasso and Michael Best, and you can listen to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street Time here
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio, and that is this morning is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Brief. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law dot com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys
Speaker 1: will find exceptional legal research and business development tools there
Speaker 1: as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg b
Speaker 1: NA dot com for more information