WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: Apple Faces Antitrust Suit (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.360
<v Speaker 1>Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:05.120
<v Speaker 1>exploring legal issues in the news, brought to you by

0:00:05.200 --> 0:00:09.840
<v Speaker 1>American Arbitration Association. Business disputes are inevitable, resolve faster with

0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:13.680
<v Speaker 1>the American Arbitration Association, the global leader and alternative dispute

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:16.919
<v Speaker 1>resolution for over eighty five years. More at a dr

0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:21.959
<v Speaker 1>dot org and today Bloombergy, Lahosting, Grosso and Michael Best

0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:24.640
<v Speaker 1>discuss a case against Apple like using the iPhone maker

0:00:24.680 --> 0:00:27.920
<v Speaker 1>of monopolizing the app store. They speak with Mark Rifkin,

0:00:28.000 --> 0:00:31.480
<v Speaker 1>a partner at Wolf Hathenstein and Harry First, our professor

0:00:31.520 --> 0:00:35.760
<v Speaker 1>at n y U Law School. Mark explain the issue

0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:39.479
<v Speaker 1>at this stage of the proceedings. Sure of the question

0:00:39.560 --> 0:00:44.240
<v Speaker 1>that we appealed was the district courts determination that consumers

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:47.159
<v Speaker 1>who bought their apps on the iPhone store as they

0:00:47.159 --> 0:00:51.160
<v Speaker 1>were required to do, and paid Apple with their credit

0:00:51.200 --> 0:00:54.440
<v Speaker 1>card as they were required to do, whether they were

0:00:54.800 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 1>direct purchasers from Apple with standing under the federal any

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:04.440
<v Speaker 1>trust laws. To bring the lawsuit challenging fee that Apple

0:01:04.560 --> 0:01:08.440
<v Speaker 1>tax onto the cost of the apps on the app store.

0:01:09.000 --> 0:01:13.280
<v Speaker 1>The district court said that the consumers were indirect purchasers

0:01:13.280 --> 0:01:16.040
<v Speaker 1>and didn't have standing, and we disagreed. We asked the

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:19.560
<v Speaker 1>Ninth Circuit to correct that decision. So, Harry, what did

0:01:19.600 --> 0:01:23.040
<v Speaker 1>the ninth circuits say about this issue? Well, basically, the

0:01:23.120 --> 0:01:27.000
<v Speaker 1>Ninth Circuit said, go ahead, Um, you have standing to

0:01:27.160 --> 0:01:31.479
<v Speaker 1>sue your direct purchaser from Apple through the App Store.

0:01:32.000 --> 0:01:34.640
<v Speaker 1>Do you believe they have standing? That seems to me

0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:38.119
<v Speaker 1>to be the right decision. Um. I think it's important

0:01:38.200 --> 0:01:43.200
<v Speaker 1>that consumers have the ability to challenge um these restrictions

0:01:43.240 --> 0:01:46.759
<v Speaker 1>on their freedom to buy the products they want at

0:01:46.800 --> 0:01:50.960
<v Speaker 1>the price they want. So, Um, if the plaintiffs can prevail,

0:01:51.120 --> 0:01:53.760
<v Speaker 1>they will be able to show that they have been

0:01:53.880 --> 0:01:57.800
<v Speaker 1>charged more than they should have for the applications they

0:01:57.840 --> 0:02:01.200
<v Speaker 1>like to buy. So Mark has been no ruling about

0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>the allegations themselves. Tell us about the allegations, sure, the

0:02:06.520 --> 0:02:13.240
<v Speaker 1>The basic allegation is that Apple controls the medium of distribution. Technologically,

0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:18.680
<v Speaker 1>it makes iPhones only compatible with applications that are sold

0:02:18.720 --> 0:02:22.760
<v Speaker 1>through the App Store, and it requires that developers who

0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:25.360
<v Speaker 1>want to sell apps through the App Store have to

0:02:25.440 --> 0:02:29.680
<v Speaker 1>agree to this markup that Apple imposes on all the

0:02:29.680 --> 0:02:32.560
<v Speaker 1>apps that are sold for a price on the App Store,

0:02:33.520 --> 0:02:36.640
<v Speaker 1>and the point of say that's anti competitive. It's the

0:02:36.639 --> 0:02:41.480
<v Speaker 1>result of Apple's monopoly, and uh, they're entitled to some

0:02:41.560 --> 0:02:45.880
<v Speaker 1>portion of that back because Apple would not be able

0:02:45.919 --> 0:02:49.560
<v Speaker 1>to charge that fee were it not for their monopoly

0:02:49.880 --> 0:02:53.880
<v Speaker 1>control over the distribution channel. And as Mark Rifkin, a

0:02:53.919 --> 0:02:56.960
<v Speaker 1>partner at Wolf having Stein and Harry First, a professor

0:02:57.000 --> 0:02:59.600
<v Speaker 1>at n y U Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Laho

0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:02.040
<v Speaker 1>student Grasso and Michael Best, and you can listen to

0:03:02.040 --> 0:03:05.120
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street Time here

0:03:05.200 --> 0:03:08.359
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg Radio, and that is this morning is Bloomberg

0:03:08.400 --> 0:03:10.920
<v Speaker 1>Law Brief. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg

0:03:11.000 --> 0:03:15.360
<v Speaker 1>Law dot com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys

0:03:15.360 --> 0:03:18.280
<v Speaker 1>will find exceptional legal research and business development tools there

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:21.480
<v Speaker 1>as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg b

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:23.840
<v Speaker 1>NA dot com for more information