Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 against Apple in an anticompetitive case involving the App Store, allowing iPhone users to move forward with their class action lawsuit against the company, as first reported by CNBC.

app store monopoly
From the Supreme Court's ruling:

In this case, however, several consumers contend that Apple charges too much for apps. The consumers argue, in particular, that Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to charge consumers higher-than competitive prices.

A claim that a monopolistic retailer (here, Apple) has used its monopoly to overcharge consumers is a classic antitrust claim. But Apple asserts that the consumer plaintiffs in this case may not sue Apple because they supposedly were not "direct purchasers" from Apple under our decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720.

We disagree. The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs' antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws. We affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by a group of ‌iPhone‌ users who believe Apple violates federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through its ‌App Store‌, where it collects a 30 percent commission from all purchases, leading to inflated prices as developers pass on the cost of the commission to customers.

In other words, the ‌iPhone‌ users believe that apps would be priced lower outside of the ‌App Store‌, as Apple's 30 percent cut would not be baked in to prices.

The lawsuit was initially dismissed in 2013 by a California district court due to errors in the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the case in 2017. Apple then appealed with the Supreme Court.

From the start, Apple has argued that it doesn't set prices for paid apps, and that charging a 30 percent commission on the distribution of paid apps and in-app purchases does not violate antitrust laws in the United States. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Apple.

Update: Apple has issued a statement (via John Packzowski) regarding the decision:

Today's decision means plaintiffs can proceed with their case in District court. We're confident we will prevail when the facts are presented and that the App Store is not a monopoly by any metric.

We're proud to have created the safest, most secure and trusted platform for customers and a great business opportunity for all developers around the world. Developers set the price they want to charge for their app and Apple has no role in that. That vast majority of apps on the App Store are free and Apple gets nothing from them. The only instance where Apple shares in revenue is if the developer chooses to sell digital services through the App Store.

Developers have a number of platforms to choose from to deliver their software — from other apps stores, to Smart TVs to gaming consoles — and we work hard every day to make our store is the best, safest and most competitive in the world.

The Supreme Court's full ruling is embedded ahead.

Popular Stories

Aston Martin CarPlay Ultra Screen

Apple's CarPlay Ultra to Expand to These Vehicle Brands Later This Year

Sunday February 1, 2026 10:08 am PST by
Last year, Apple launched CarPlay Ultra, the long-awaited next-generation version of its CarPlay software system for vehicles. Nearly nine months later, CarPlay Ultra is still limited to Aston Martin's latest luxury vehicles, but that should change fairly soon. In May 2025, Apple said many other vehicle brands planned to offer CarPlay Ultra, including Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis. In his Powe...
Apple Logo Black

Apple's Next Launch is 'Imminent'

Sunday February 1, 2026 12:31 pm PST by
The calendar has turned to February, and a new report indicates that Apple's next product launch is "imminent," in the form of new MacBook Pro models. "All signs point to an imminent launch of next-generation MacBook Pros that retain the current form factor but deliver faster chips," Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said on Sunday. "I'm told the new models — code-named J714 and J716 — are slated...
Apple MacBook Pro M4 hero

New MacBook Pros Reportedly Launching Alongside macOS 26.3

Sunday February 1, 2026 5:42 am PST by
Apple is planning to launch new MacBook Pro models with M5 Pro and M5 Max chips alongside macOS 26.3, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. "Apple's faster MacBook Pros are planned for the macOS 26.3 release cycle," wrote Gurman, in his Power On newsletter today. "I'm told the new models — code-named J714 and J716 — are slated for the macOS 26.3 software cycle, which runs from...
iOS 26

iOS 26.3 and iOS 26.4 Will Add These New Features to Your iPhone

Tuesday February 3, 2026 7:47 am PST by
We are still waiting for the iOS 26.3 Release Candidate to come out, so the first iOS 26.4 beta is likely still at least a week or two away. Following beta testing, iOS 26.4 will likely be released to the general public in March or April. Below, we have recapped known or rumored iOS 26.3 and iOS 26.4 features so far. iOS 26.3 iPhone to Android Transfer Tool iOS 26.3 makes it easier...
14 inch MacBook Pro Keyboard

Apple Changes How You Order a Mac

Saturday January 31, 2026 10:51 am PST by
Apple recently updated its online store with a new ordering process for Macs, including the MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro. There used to be a handful of standard configurations available for each Mac, but now you must configure a Mac entirely from scratch on a feature-by-feature basis. In other words, ordering a new Mac now works much like ordering an...

Top Rated Comments

johnrlaporta Avatar
88 months ago
How ridiculous. If they stopped charging the 30%, the companies would just keep the price the same and pocket the 30% Who wouldn't?
Score: 46 Votes (Like | Disagree)
macjoshua Avatar
88 months ago
They can always buy an Android phone if they want a more open and potentially insecure way of getting apps.
Score: 45 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Rogifan Avatar
88 months ago
Good. It IS a monopoly.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone. I should have the choice to install apps from whatever source I desire, and I shouldn't have to go through ridiculous machinations with Xcode every week to do it.
It’s not though. You’re basically buying a license to software that comes with an end user license agreement (EULA) which dictates what can and can’t be done with the software. It’s not a monopoly because one can easily buy something else.
Score: 44 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Victor Mortimer Avatar
88 months ago
Good. It IS a monopoly.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone. I should have the choice to install apps from whatever source I desire, and I shouldn't have to go through ridiculous machinations with Xcode every week to do it.
Score: 36 Votes (Like | Disagree)
TimFL1 Avatar
88 months ago
Will be interesting to see how this plays out....
It wont. This will go nowhere, platform holders take cuts everywhere (console stores, Steam, Epic Store, literally any marketplace on earth does so to finance the delivery of said content).
30% is the average fee, it‘s ugly but everyone does it.

I, for one, am against having other places than the App Store for app distribution. One unified place to get your apps (securely and up-to-date) from beats out the mess you find on Android.
Score: 33 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Rogifan Avatar
88 months ago
No You can’t!
Because apple has a walled garden too. If You have a watch?
Again no one is personally forced to own any Apple product.
Score: 24 Votes (Like | Disagree)