- 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)
Kickstarter Faces Backlash After Firing Two Union Organizers
- Two employees at Kickstarter are claiming they were fired for organizing a union at the company, which would be illegal if confirmed.
- People tied to Kickstarter, and others, are speaking out in favor of the employees and encouraging the company to not fight the union.
- Kickstarter denies that the employee’s terminations had anything to do with unionizing and cited their performances, though some have pushed back on that argument.
Employees Allegedly Fired for Unionizing
Two employees at Kickstarter claim that they have been fired for organizing a union. If their accounts are true, the company would be in violation of U.S. labor laws.
First reported by Slate, the two employees in question are Taylor Moore, who was fired Thursday, and Clarissa Redwine, who was fired last week. Moore posted a Twitter thread saying the company offered him one month’s severance in exchange for signing an NDA, but he turned it down. He claimed a third employee also lost their job over the matter.
“Today a third prominent member of the union was told there is no place for him at the company,” Moore wrote. “I stand firm in solidarity with my friends and colleagues.”
“The union busting campaign that Kickstarter management is engaging in is illegal and wrong,” he added before urging other employees to unionize. “It is an unforgivable abandonment of the values of an organization that I have loved and served with my whole heart.”
Kickstarter Defends Itself
According to the National Labor Relations Board, workers have the right to unionize, which includes distributing union literature, wearing insignia, and soliciting and discussing the union with coworkers.
“You can’t be fired, disciplined, demoted, or penalized in any way for engaging in these activities,” the board says.
Kickstarter, however, claims the union had nothing to do with these terminations. According to a statement they gave to The Verge, the employees “failed to correct performance issues that were documented and discussed in detail with them over the course of several months.”
“This is not as interesting as a story about ‘union busting,’ but it is the reality of what happened here,” the statement added.
Kickstarter backed their statement up on Twitter as well.
Employee Refutes Kickstarter’s Claim
Redwine finds it hard to believe that job performance was really the catalyst. She tweeted that she did well on recent reviews. Other Twitter users also credited Redwine for being skilled at her job.
She also said she would not sign the NDA offered and told Kickstarter, “you can keep my severance.”
@kickstarter I will not be signing your termination agreement containing a non-disparagement clause. You can keep my severance. 💪— Clarissa Redwine (@ClarissaRedwine) September 12, 2019
According to Slate’s report, Redwine filed an unfair labor charge with the National Labor Relations Board citing that the offered severance contained an illegally phrased nondisparagement clause. Kickstarter confirmed to them that they received the filing.
Support for Kickstarter Employees
Many voices started speaking up for the fired employees and the employees unionizing. Andy Baio, the company’s first CTO, who as of 2018 served as a fellow to the company said, “I support the team’s right to unionize, and believe the company should recognize the union.”
“I can’t possibly know with certainty why Taylor and Clarissa were let go, but it doesn’t look good,” he added.
Boots Riley, musician and director of the acclaimed 2018 film Sorry to Bother You said he stood with the union and told Kickstarter to “stop union busting.”
The Kickstarter United account, which speaks for the company’s organizers and workers, released a statement about the matter. The company said it was committed to Kickstarter’s mission and “will continue to support creators currently on the platform and in our alumni network.” It is asking creators not to boycott the company.
“We deeply appreciate the support from our community,” they added. “The work we are doing is not only in service of employees, but the artists, makers, and backers throughout the Kickstarter ecosystem.”
Jack in the Box Worker Fired After Refusing to Take Deaf Woman’s Order
- A viral video shows a woman in a Jack in the Box drive-thru being denied service, yelled at, and mocked by an employee.
- The video shows the customer explaining that she could not order through the drive-thru speaker because she is deaf, but the employee refused to take her order regardless.
- Jack in the Box has since fired the worker and the customer says she plans to pursue legal action.
Incident Caught on Video
A Jack in the Box employee has been fired after he was recorded refusing to take a deaf woman’s order and mocking her sign language.
ReVae Arnaud-Jensen and her son visited the fast-food chain in Campbell, California on Aug 31. Arnaud-Jenson, who has been deaf her entire life but can speak and read lips, tried to place her order at the first window of the store’s drive-thru and explain her situation.
However, Arnaud-Jensen was shocked by the hostile exchange that occurred between her and a store employee. The worker at the window repeatedly refused to take her order, even after Arnaud-Jensen told him she is deaf.
In the video, the employee is heard shouting at her to move out of the drive-thru and go back to place her order at the speaker. “I can’t hear. “You’re discriminating me,” Arnaud-Jensen says pointing to her ear.
“Whatever. Whatever,” the employee responds. “Go! Move!”
He shouts back explaining that he said “Can I help you?” earlier, but she didn’t respond. She tries to ask for her order while continuing to tell him that she is deaf and can’t use the speaker.
“I don’t care. I don’t care, go,” he tells her. The yelling between the two quickly escalates. “Shut up!” he screams at her as he continues to deny her service.
At one point, the employee tries to have her park away from the window, saying her food will be brought over to her car, but she refuses. “I will sit here and wait for you,” she tells him. “I’m going to wait for you until I get my food and then I’ll pay you. Thank you. If you want to have a lawsuit, go ahead.”
When the employee notices that he is being recorded by the customer’s son, he starts mocking her sign language, giving the camera a thumbs up and waving his hands around while laughing.
The employee eventually closes the window on her and walks away.
Arnaud-Jensen shared the video on her Facebook page, where she wrote that she sat in the drive-thru for two hours.
“This is common for deaf people to experience this, including me,” Arnaud-Jensen added in a comment. “This is not my first time. I had this happen to me several times, however, this one was the worst I have experienced.”
She later spoke to WKYT about the incident saying, “I was just fed up, the constant, you know, telling us to go, when it should be equal access.”
“This needs to stop. It’s very common everywhere. It needs to stop. This is 2019. I fight for equal access. And I feel awful. I feel like it was my fault.”
Her son, Malachi Jense, told NBC News he was shocked by the situation. “It was my first time seeing an employee acting like that, and honestly I was very shocked. I felt pretty mad too because deaf people very often get treated differently.”
A spokesperson for Jack in the Box said the employee was fired over the incident.
“We do not tolerate the mistreatment of any customers and expect employees to follow all training procedures, be respectful, courteous and accommodating to all guests,” the company said in a statement to NBC Bay Area
“After a thorough investigation of the incident and direct contact with the local franchise owner, we understand the employee in the video has been terminated.”
Arnaud- Jenson told the station that firing the worker wasn’t enough and said she plans to take legal action. “It’s not only training… You need that depth of knowledge of deaf culture to fully understand the needs,” she said.
Adult Entertainment Industry Praises BangBros for Destroying Porn Doxing Site PornWikiLeaks
- Pornography production company BangBros announced that it had purchased the website PornWikiLeaks, which was well known for doxing adult film stars and exposing their personal information online.
- In a statement on PornWikiLeak’s website, BangBros said that it has shut down the site for good and removed all the information. It also linked to a video of someone burning hard drives that allegedly contained the site’s data.
- Adult film stars like Rachel Starr and Diamond Foxxx, as well as industry leaders like Playboy Plus, commended the move online.
BangBros Acquires PornWikiLeaks
Performers in the adult film industry are praising pornographic production company BangBros for buying and shutting down the website PornWikiLeaks, which was known for doxing adult film stars.
Since it was created in 2010, PornWikiLeaks has revealed the personal information of around 15,000 adult film stars, including not only their real names, but their addresses, phone numbers, and information about their families.
Like the original WikiLeaks, PornWikiLeaks reportedly claimed to expose corruption in the industry.
It allegedly obtained that information from a leak in a patient database managed by a company called AIM Medical Associates, where many performers go to get STD testing, and which has since been shut down.
In addition to sharing personal information, the website also included whether or not each performer did “crossover” work, meaning both gay and straight porn.
BangBros announced the acquisition in a statement on the PornWikiLeaks homepage Thursday.
“For too long, this site has unfortunately been a resource for hate, lies, and sensitive information,” the statement said. “Many of us have had our real names online for the world to see. Over 15,000 performers real names were listed here.”
“That type of information wasn’t voluntarily submitted. It was stolen from anyone that had it posted,” it continued. “BangBros had enough. We have purchased this site with the intention of shutting it down and removing all information associated with it.”
“If you had anything ever posted on here, it will be removed and deleted forever from here,” it concluded.
The statement also included a link to a video titled “All the Pornwikileaks Data,” which showed someone pouring flammable fluid on a bunch of hard drives and lighting them on fire.
Adult film stars and others in the industry applauded the move on social media.
Performers like Rachel Starr and Claire Dames thanked BangBros on Twitter.
Adult film star Diamond Foxxx also thanked the company for ending PornWikiLeaks, adding that she was personally affected by the site “to the point I was forced to sell my home and move and also changing my phone number several times.”
The official Twitter account for Playboy Plus also commended the move, and thanked BangBros for “protecting the privacy of all sex workers.”
GirlsDoPorn Lawsuit & Past Controversies
While the website is now shut down, many have also pointed out the lasting damage it has caused for so many people.
In fact, the announcement from BangBros comes right after a lawsuit filed against the amateur website Girls Do Porn began its trial proceedings in San Diego Superior Court.
In that lawsuit, 22 women claim that they were tricked into performing pornography after responding to ads for models for photos and videos on Craigslist.
Many of the women reportedly still agreed to make the pornographic videos after they were promised they would never be posted on the internet.
However, the videos were posted on the Girls Do Porn website, and they were also distributed to sites like PornHub.
After the videos were posted, the women’s names and private information appeared PornWikileaks. The plaintiffs also claim that the videos were sent to their families and college classmates.
As a result, some of the women in the lawsuit lost their jobs or were expelled from college. Notably, a Miss Teen Delaware winner was stripped of her crown. Now, the women in the lawsuit are asking for $22 million in damages.
While the lawsuit is explicitly against people directly involved in the Girls Do Porn company, the defendant’s lawyers have basically argued that the exposure is entirely the fault of PornWikiLeaks.
“What Plaintiffs complain about are the actions of third parties — ‘internet trolls’ — who ferreted out the names of the women on the internet,” lawyers for the producers said in court filings accessed by The New York Times.
However, on Tuesday, VICE reported that a videographer named in the lawsuit admitted to lying to women by promising them the videos would not be posted online.
Some have wondered on social media if burning the hard drives for PornWikiLeaks was destroying evidence, but since they are not directly named in the lawsuit, it seems unlikely.