- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that iPhone user can sue Apple on the grounds that the company is monopolizing the market.
- The decision stems from a 2011 class-action lawsuit that argues Apple essentially forces users to only use its App store and forces developers to raise their prices because of the company’s membership and commission fees.
- Apple and other tech companies like Google and Amazon are concerned this judgment will bring more lawsuits and antitrust complaints against them.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that iPhone users can sue Apple on the grounds that the company is monopolizing the marketplace with their App store, as well as increasing prices of the apps with additional charges.
This judgment overturns a previous court decision involving four iPhone users who filed a class action suit against Apple in 2011. In their complaint, the users claim Apple essentially forces them to use only the Apple App store. The complaint also says Apple requires an annual $99 membership fee for app developers and says Apple takes 30 percent commission on every app sale.
“Through these actions,” the complaint states, “Apple has unlawfully stifled competition, reduced output and consumer choice, and artificially increased prices in the aftermarkets for iPhone.”
Apple turned to a previous Supreme Court decision for their defense, citing the 1977 case Illinois Brick Company versus Illinois. In that case, the court ruled that only those directly purchasing bricks from Illinois Brick Company had the right to sue. The tech company argued that because the app store was technically a middleman between the app developers and the consumers, the iPhone users had no right to pursue legal action. In 2013, the court ruled in favor of Apple and dismissed the complaint.
“Given that none of the exceptions to the Illinois Brick doctrine apply,” the judge ruled, “Plaintiffs are barred from bringing claims because they are indirect purchasers.”
The iPhone users immediately filed an appeal to attempt to overturn the judgment, ultimately bringing the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals in 2017. The appeal case finally ended with a five to four vote on Monday in favor of the consumers. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the deciding vote, going against Apple and surprising many by forgoing his usual conservative stance.
“The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick,” Kavanaugh stated as the reason for his vote.
What Does the Ruling Mean?
The Supreme Court, however, did not directly rule on the 2011 case on Monday, they only determined that the original plaintiffs had the right to continue pursuing their lawsuit. Many big-name tech companies like Google and Amazon have voiced concerns over the new judgment.
They fear that allowing class action suits like the one from 2011 to proceed, will open the floodgates to many more antitrust complaints, resulting in costly and lengthy lawsuits.
Edward Black, the CEO of the nonprofit organization Computer and Communications Industry Association, echoed the tech companies’ worries.
“We are concerned that the outcome of this ruling expands a previous ruling (Illinois Brick’s), and increases liability risks for multi-sided business models,” Black stated. “The decision may unintentionally expose businesses offering digital platform services to unintended liability.”
Apple’s response to the judgment, however, does not appear to show any concern about future litigation.
“We’re confident we will prevail when the facts are presented and that the App Store is not a monopoly by any metric,” they said in a statement. “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.”
If the plaintiffs decide to continue with their original class action suit, it will be the district courts decision to determine if Apple did, in fact, violate any antitrust laws. For now, they have the support of the Supreme Court to fight on.
See what others are saying: (Market Watch) (The Hill) (Bloomberg)
“Cyberpunk 2077” Developer Agrees To Settle Lawsuit for $1.85M
If approved, CD Projekt Red would pay just a small fraction of the $316 million it reportedly spent developing the game.
CDPR Agrees To Settle
Game developer CD Projekt Red (CDPR) has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit related to its buggy launch of “Cyberpunk 2077” for $1.85 million, The Verge reported Thursday.
The lawsuit itself is actually a conglomeration of four different suits brought by shareholders who alleged that they were misled about the company’s financial performance. Since the game’s release, CD Projekt Red’s share price has fallen 54%.
The settlement must now be approved in court, but overall, it appears to be a small amount compared to the game’s $316 million budget. In fact, the game reportedly made $563 million in sales and only spent around $2.2 million on a refund campaign, though the developer’s overall refund cost for 2020 could have been as much as $51 million.
“Perhaps the plaintiffs didn’t have much of a case?” The Verge writer Sean Hollister speculated on why “it sounds like the lead plaintiffs and their lawyers negotiated for a fairly tiny sum here in exchange for ‘relinquish[ing] any and all claims against the Company and members of its Management Board.’”
“As expressly stated in the Term Sheet, execution of the Term Sheet does not imply admission of any responsibility on the part of the Company or any of the other defendants named in the case,” the negotiated settlement reads.
“Cyberpunk’s” Botched Launch
“Cyberpunk” was first announced in 2012, and for years, it was the subject of widespread fan anticipation. Seven years later, a release date of April 16, 2020, was given; however, that date was pushed back several times much to the ire of fans, some of whom even sent CDPR staff death threats.
The game was ultimately released amid fan pressure on Dec. 10, 2020, but it was so riddled with glitches that Sony infamously pulled “Cyberpunk” from its Playstation Store a week later, offering full refunds to all players who had purchased a digital copy. In June this year, “Cyberpunk” finally made its way back onto the Playstation Store following multiple patches and hotfixes from CDPR.
Despite “Cyberpunk” surpassing a massive 8 million pre-orders before launch, Bloomberg reported last week that “Where analysts had originally expected Cyberpunk sales of 30 million units in the year after the game’s release, they now expect 17.3 million copies to have been sold in that time.”
In October, CDPR delayed planned next-gen updates for both “Cyberpunk” and “The Witcher 3” until the first and second quarters of 2022, respectively.
“Apologies for the extended wait, but we want to make it right,” the developer said.
See what others are saying: (The Verge) (Engadget) (Video Games Chronicle)
E.U. Court Rules That All Member Nations Must Recognize Same-Sex Parents
The decision comes after a child named Sara was left without a country to call home because she had two mothers.
The Child With No Citizenship
The European Court of Justice, the European Union’s highest court, ruled Tuesday that all 27 of its member states must recognize same-sex parents and their children as a family.
The ruling stems from a case involving two women and their newborn daughter, whose status as a family originally varied between member nations. As a result, the couple’s daughter was left without citizenship in any country.
The two women, Bulgarian citizen Kalina Ivanova and Gibraltar-born British citizen Jane Jones, found themselves unable to take their newborn child Sara out of Spain after she was born in the country. Because Spain recognizes same-sex marriage, both Ivanova and Jones were registered as the girl’s legal mothers on her Spanish birth certificate.
However, under Spanish law, Sara was unable to gain citizenship in the country since neither of her parents were Spanish citizens. On top of that, she was denied British citizenship because Jones “was born in Gibraltar of British descent, and under the British Nationality Act (1981), [Jones] cannot transfer citizenship to her daughter,” the LGBTQ+ advocacy group ILGA-Europe said in a press release.
That left the couple with one other option: register Sara as a Bulgarian citizen. Still, the Bulgarian government refused to issue Sara a legally-recognized birth certificate, arguing that she is ineligible to have two mothers. Officially, Bulgaria does not recognize either same-sex marriages or same-sex registered partnerships.
“Currently, the child has no personal documents and cannot leave Spain, the country of the family’s habitual residence,” lLGA-Europe said. “The lack of documents restrict Sara’s access to education, healthcare, and social security in Spain.”
In its Tuesday decision, the European Court of Justice ruled that children in the EU have a legal right to freely move between countries given that such a right is afforded to all EU citizens. Because of this, all countries are now required to uniformly recognize the child’s parents, even if they are of the same sex.
“That refusal could make it more difficult for a Bulgarian identity document to be issued and, therefore, hinder the child’s exercise of the right of free movement and thus full enjoyment of her rights as a Union citizen,” the court said.
Despite some member states like Bulgaria not legally recognizing same-sex couples, the court stressed that its ruling “does not undermine the national identity or pose a threat to the public policy” of those nations.
That’s because while Bulgaria doesn’t have to issue its own birth certificate for Sara, it does have to recognize the Spanish birth certificate and issue its own identity card or passport for Sara.
“We are thrilled about the decision and cannot wait to get Sara her documentation and finally be able to see our families after more than two years,” Sara’s parents said according to the ILGA-Europe release. “It is important for us to be a family, not only in Spain but in any country in Europe and finally it might happen. This is a long-awaited step ahead for us but also a huge step for all LGBT families in Bulgaria and Europe.”
GoFundMe Campaign Raises $8,700 for Waitress Who Was Fired After Not Sharing $4,400 Tip With Co-Workers
The waitress said this was the only time management had ever tried to force her to pool a tip in her three-and-a-half years working at the restaurant.
Waitress Gets Fired After Receiving Massive Tip
An Arkansas waitress has received over $8,700 in donations online after she was fired from her job for refusing to split her half of a $4,400 dollar tip with the rest of the restaurant’s crew.
That waitress, Ryan Brandt, told local Nexstar outlet KNWA last week that she and another server received the tip after waiting on a group of more than 40 people at the Oven & Tap restaurant in Bentonville.
“It was an incredible thing to do and to see her reaction was awesome, to see what that meant to her, the impact that it’s had on her life already,” Grant Wise, who was part of the party Brandt served, told the outlet.
According to KNWA, Wise called the restaurant before his large party arrived and asked about its tipping policy since they intentionally planned to donate $100 each as part of a way to thank restaurant workers. At the time of his call, Wise said he was told the money would go directly to his party’s servers.
“We knew servers were really hit hard through COVID, and it was something that we had come up with to help give back,” Wise told KFSM.
The outcome, however, was much different. After receiving the tip, Brandt and the other server were allegedly told by a manager that they needed to pool the tip with the rest of the workers on duty. Brandt told KNWA she had never once been asked to pool her tips in her three-and-a-half years at the restaurant prior to this.
Complying meant Brant would take home just 20% of her half of the tip.
At some point before leaving, Brandt informed Wise that her tip would be pooled with the rest of the staff. Wise, who had intended the money to only go to his servers, then asked management to return his tip, which he gave to Brandt directly outside the restaurant. The following day, Brandt said she was fired over the phone.
“It was devastating,” Brandt told local outlets. “I borrowed a significant amount for student loans. Most of them were turned off because of the pandemic but they’re turning back on in January and that’s a harsh reality.”
Oven & Tap did not speak on Brandt’s firing in its initial statement. Instead, it only said, “After dining, this large group of guests requested that their gratuity be given to two particular servers. We fully honored their request. Out of respect for our highly valued team members, we do not discuss the details surrounding the termination of an employee.”
In a follow-up statement, Oven & Tap owners Mollie Mullis and Luke Wetzel said, “The server who was terminated several days after the group dined with us was not let go because she chose to keep the tip money.”
“We recognize and regret that a recent incident in our restaurant could have been handled differently by reminding our team how we would be splitting any tips prior to the event, however, our policy has always been to participate in a tip pool/share with the staff. Tip sharing is a common restaurant industry practice that we follow to ensure all of our team members are adequately compensated for their hard work.”
Oven & Tap has still not specifically commented on why it fired Brandt, but Brandt told KNWA she believes it’s because she violated company policy by telling Wise that his party’s tip was going to be pooled.
Online Fundraising Campaigns for Brandt
After learning of Brandt’s firing, Wise created a GoFundMe, which ultimately raised $8,732 for Brandt.
“[Brandt] is, from what I can tell, a very kind woman that was working two jobs to get by through the pandemic,” he said in his initial post. “She has incredible aspirations to grow her own business and I can tell has a servants-heart.”
Wise provided an update Tuesday saying that instead of closing the GoFundMe, he will keep the campaign open to raise additional money to “pay it forward” to a future group of restaurant staff who will wait on his party.
“In January, we are going to host another $100 Dinner Club and I have invited [Brandt] to be our ‘Guest of Honor’!” he said. “Any dollar amount raised over the $8,732 that has already been raised and is being paid out to [Brandt] will be given directly to the staff of the restaurant we decide to eat at.”
“We will be working to ensure through this that all staff in the restaurant are tipped so everyone feels blessed by our dinner.”
As of Tuesday morning, the GoFundMe page has raised over $9,100.