App maker seeks $200B from Apple in App Store class action lawsuit
A proposed class action lawsuit targeting Apple's App Store and filed by an "edutainment" app maker was assigned a judge in California on Thursday, potentially setting the stage for another app marketplace showdown.
Primary Productions, a New Jersey company with offices based in Maine, first filed charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in May, claiming Apple hurts developers by applying monopolistic practices to its management of the App Store. The firm sought to inform users about blockchain wallets through an app, which was rejected entry into the App Store upon review.
Calling the tech giant a "stealth monopolist," the complaint, and an amended version submitted in August, takes issue with Apple's developer fees, commissions, bundling of first-party apps, acquisition of third-party apps, "blacklisting," so-called "sherlocking," search suppression, app rejections and other issues.
The proposed class action is seeking a minimum of $200 billion, with $900 million going to lead plaintiff Primary Productions. Apple moved to transfer the case to California in August.
A majority of claims contained in the complaint have been cited in separate cases and governmental inquiries -- domestic and international -- including a proposed class action lawsuit lodged by developers in 2019 to in part oppose fees and commissions. Apple and developers last week reached an agreement that, if accepted by the court, will settle the case with the creation of a $100 million fund for small developers and App Store policy changes that include allowances for app makers to contact customers about alternative payment methods.
More recently, Apple on Wednesday announced plans to allow "reader" apps to link out to the web for account management purposes. The concession was made to close an investigation into App Store policy conducted by the Japan Fair Trade Commission.
The Primary Productions complaint cites six counts of violating the Sherman Act, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley was assigned to the case on Thursday.
Read on AppleInsider
Primary Productions, a New Jersey company with offices based in Maine, first filed charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in May, claiming Apple hurts developers by applying monopolistic practices to its management of the App Store. The firm sought to inform users about blockchain wallets through an app, which was rejected entry into the App Store upon review.
Calling the tech giant a "stealth monopolist," the complaint, and an amended version submitted in August, takes issue with Apple's developer fees, commissions, bundling of first-party apps, acquisition of third-party apps, "blacklisting," so-called "sherlocking," search suppression, app rejections and other issues.
The proposed class action is seeking a minimum of $200 billion, with $900 million going to lead plaintiff Primary Productions. Apple moved to transfer the case to California in August.
A majority of claims contained in the complaint have been cited in separate cases and governmental inquiries -- domestic and international -- including a proposed class action lawsuit lodged by developers in 2019 to in part oppose fees and commissions. Apple and developers last week reached an agreement that, if accepted by the court, will settle the case with the creation of a $100 million fund for small developers and App Store policy changes that include allowances for app makers to contact customers about alternative payment methods.
More recently, Apple on Wednesday announced plans to allow "reader" apps to link out to the web for account management purposes. The concession was made to close an investigation into App Store policy conducted by the Japan Fair Trade Commission.
The Primary Productions complaint cites six counts of violating the Sherman Act, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley was assigned to the case on Thursday.
Primary Productions v. Apple by Mikey Campbell on Scribd
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Fucking clowns.
I don't need Apple to play nanny, or mom. Thanks.
I’ve been a developer for 20 years and I very clearly remember when there was no App Store and the only way to get software to users was far more complicated and required far more resources. Apple’s App Store is so easy because of what Apple has created, and we are not entitled to any of it.
"Law schools may want to start introducing a new program to train lawyers in interpreting Apple’s App Store rules. The company’s latest changes, introduced to settle a Japanese antitrust investigation, add a layer of complexity to already-opaque rules. The rules have long had an element of arbitrariness, treating developers differently, as The Information’s founder has written. But the latest batch of changes—including those last week settling a developer lawsuit—only make matters worse.
For instance, the Japanese agreement this week allows developers of “reader apps”—those apps that let people access previously-purchased content or subscriptions—to put a link inside their apps to outside websites where users can pay for their content. Japan’s Fair Trade Commission indicated e-book apps were covered by the changes. That makes sense: You can read previously-purchased books on apps like Amazon’s Kindle.
The change implies Apple will let Kindle put in a link to its store website for “account management”—that presumably means future book purchases. If so, shouldn’t Epic Games have the right to put in a similar link to let people buy games on its website? (Apple won’t comment on the new rules’ impact on individual apps). Another anomaly is Match.com, the subscription dating app, which we hear doesn’t consider itself a reader app. That means it doesn’t plan to add a link to an external payment option. But what’s the difference between a subscription service like Match and a music or video streaming subscription service?
By dealing with the onslaught of investigations and legal actions through tiny concessions made one at a time, Apple is trying to avoid stalling its App Store profit engine. But these piecemeal moves, by creating complexity and aggravating disparate treatment, may only worsen the situation. (Even Spotify, which benefits from the changes, said they didn’t go far enough). It also adds to the uncertainty about the future profits of the App Store, which should be a big deal for investors. Legislation coming out of Korea and pending elsewhere mean wholesale changes are likely. Apple needs to take bigger action, faster."