App maker seeks $200B from Apple in App Store class action lawsuit

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 2021
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.

App Store


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

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,381member
    $200B 😂

    Fucking clowns. 
    rob53sdw2001JFC_PAkillroyspock1234leavingthebiggwilliamlondonwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 17
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,011member
    slurpy said:
    $200B 😂

    Fucking clowns. 
    Indeed.  They don’t even know how many class members there are.  What they do state is it’s “millions of developers in the U.S.” in addition to them and one other company.  Obviously that’s absurd, but let’s say it’s 2 million class members.  That’s 100k in damages per.  Lulz.  
    killroyspock1234williamlondonwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 3 of 17
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,182member
    Objection! The plaintiff’s claims are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. And I raise them $800B in countersuit. Yes, One Trillion Dollars.
    spock1234watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 4 of 17
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,681member
    It is time to scale back the Apple Appstore, the free and easy Wild West is over, like America fighting expensive ill-fated wars, the American tax/corporate bank is closing down from within, China isn’t the enemy the enemy is us the Americans from within the window.…… 
    DAalsethleavingthebiggwilliamlondonviclauyycwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 5 of 17
    danox said:
    It is time to scale back the Apple Appstore, the free and easy Wild West is over, like America fighting expensive ill-fated wars, the American tax/corporate bank is closing down from within, China isn’t the enemy the enemy is us the Americans from within the window.…… 
    So are you a china troll, or just an idiot? your statement makes absolutely no sense. How is any of the crap in this statement related or relevant?
    georgie01Beatswilliamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 17
    Love it. Apple needs to give up its control freakery. 

    I don't need Apple to play nanny, or mom. Thanks.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 7 of 17
    Love it. Apple needs to give up its control freakery. 

    I don't need Apple to play nanny, or mom. Thanks.
    Then go buy an Android … 
    genovelleBeatswilliamlondonwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 8 of 17
    Love it. Apple needs to give up its control freakery. 

    I don't need Apple to play nanny, or mom. Thanks.
    Then go buy an Android … 
    Second!
    williamlondonwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 9 of 17
    Apple may have to close the App Store is this foolery continues. It would not be worth the effort. Flip 3rd party developers to a new store based on web apps webapps and return native apps to internal only. Those resources can be refocused on developing their 1st party features. 
    leavingthebiggBeatswatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 10 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    j2fusion said:
    Love it. Apple needs to give up its control freakery. 

    I don't need Apple to play nanny, or mom. Thanks.
    Then go buy an Android … 
    Second!
    Eventually, and IMO sooner rather than later, you'll have the same option on an iPhone. I believe 3rd party stores for iOS are unavoidable and the process is underway as I type. Way too many antitrust actions around the globe for Apple and Google to avoid it. 
  • Reply 11 of 17
    gatorguy said:
    j2fusion said:
    Love it. Apple needs to give up its control freakery. 

    I don't need Apple to play nanny, or mom. Thanks.
    Then go buy an Android … 
    Second!
    Way too many antitrust actions around the globe for Apple and Google to avoid it. 
    When that happens Apple (at least, I have 0 experience with the Play Store) will really have to start putting effort into making the App Store the best place to go for apps. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 17
    It’s really depressing that developers (and users) have gotten to the point where they believe a creator of a device can have a wrongful ‘monopoly’ over the device they created, as if somehow we are entitled to have that device and that the creator is legally obligated to make it work how we want it to.

    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.
    Beatswilliamlondonwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 13 of 17
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member
    From The Information:

    "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."

  • Reply 14 of 17
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    Sounds like they just read through other peoples press releases, picked out all the buzz words, and then threw them at the wall to see if any of them might stick.
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 15 of 17
    sdw2001 said:
    slurpy said:
    $200B 😂

    Fucking clowns. 
    Indeed.  They don’t even know how many class members there are.  What they do state is it’s “millions of developers in the U.S.” in addition to them and one other company.  Obviously that’s absurd, but let’s say it’s 2 million class members.  That’s 100k in damages per.  Lulz.  
    Actually 70K per since lawyers would get 30% of the $200B! 😉
    watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 16 of 17
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
  • Reply 17 of 17
Sign In or Register to comment.