After US Antitrust Lawsuit, Apple Faces Flurry Of Lawsuits From Consumers
[ad_1]
Apple faces a surge of legal action from consumers alleging monopolistic behaviour in the smartphone market, following a broad antitrust case filed by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and 15 states last week. As reported by Reuters, at least three proposed class-action lawsuits have been initiated in federal courts in California and New Jersey since Friday.
Apple Allegedly Inflated Prices
These lawsuits, brought forth by iPhone owners, claim that Apple artificially inflated the prices of its products through anti-competitive practices.
The legal actions, aiming to represent millions of consumers, echo the Justice Department’s accusations against Apple, alleging violations of US antitrust laws by stifling technology for messaging apps, digital wallets, and other features that could have fostered competition in the smartphone market.
ALSO READ: US Sues Apple Over Its Monopoly On iPhone Ecosystem
Apple has refuted the government’s allegations but has not yet commented on the new consumer lawsuits. Attorney Steve Berman, representing one of the new cases, highlighted his firm’s prior lawsuit against Apple over alleged anti-competitive practices related to Apple Pay, expressing satisfaction with the DOJ’s alignment with their approach.
Apple is no stranger to legal battles regarding its business practices. Earlier this year, a judge ruled that Apple must confront a class-action lawsuit representing millions of consumers who claim the tech giant monopolised the market for iPhone apps, despite Apple’s denial of these claims.
Notably, Hagens Berman, the law firm behind one of the current cases, has previously secured significant settlements from Apple in separate cases related to ebook pricing and app store policies, amounting to $550 million.
ALSO READ: Apple Faces Record EUR 1.84 Billion Fine Over Spotify-App Store Issue
A study conducted by a University of Buffalo law school professor in 2022 suggests that private antitrust class actions may sometimes yield more substantial outcomes than government cases, potentially broadening the scope of wrongdoing, recovery amounts, or the involvement of defendants.
[ad_2]
Source link
