Connect with us

Business

iPhone Users Can Sue Apple For Monopolizing App Store, Supreme Court Rules

Published

on

  • 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)

Business

Philadelphia Will Pay $2M to Black Woman Beaten by Officers Whose Child Was Used in a Pro-Police Social Media Post

Published

on

The post from the National Fraternal Order of Police claimed officers found the toddler “lost” and “barefoot,” but the mother’s lawyers said police ripped the child from her vehicle during an unjust stop and caused him to lose his hearing aids. 


$2 Million Settlement

The city of Philadelphia has agreed to pay a $2 million settlement to 29-year-old Rickia Young, a Black woman who was pulled from her car and beaten by police officers last year while trying to navigate through protests spurred by the police killing of Walter Wallace Jr. 

Along with the settlement, both an officer and a sergeant have been fired in connection to their treatment of Young that night. Another 14 members of the Philadelphia Police Department are awaiting disciplinary hearings that stem from an internal investigation into the incident. 

The terminations and investigations have not satisfied Kevin Mincey, one of Young’s attorneys. He’s currently calling on District Attorney Lawrence Krasner to file criminal charges against those officers, saying, “If any citizen did something like this, there would be no question they will be charged with aggravated assault as a felony.”

As of Thursday morning, Kranser has not said whether he plans to pursue such charges. 

Police Beating of Rickia Young 

On Oct. 27, 2020, Young said she drove into West Philly to pick up her 16-year-old nephew because he lived near the epicenter of the protests that were happening that night.

On her way back home, she reportedly came across a group of protesters blocking the street while engaging in a standoff with police. The police allegedly ordered her to turn her car around, and according to her attorneys, she complied but paused at one point to avoid hitting protesters running past her car.

From there, Young’s attorneys claimed police surrounded her vehicle. They then allegedly broke her windows with batons before pulling her and her nephew out of the vehicle. According to multiple outlets, the officers began beating her, leaving her with swelling on her face and body, as well as a swollen trachea. A video of this incident later went viral online.

For hours, Young was separated from her toddler, who was removed from the car by police and lost his hearing aids at some point during the night, according to her attorneys. Even after getting her son back, for days, she was without her car. 

Ultimately, neither young nor her nephew were cited. 

Pro-Police Post Involving Young’s Son

Two days after the incident, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the country’s largest police labor union, posted an image to Facebook showing an officer holding a young, Black child.

“This child was lost during the violent riots in Philadelphia, wandering around barefoot in an area that was experiencing complete lawlessness,” The caption read. “The only thing this Philadelphia Police Officer cared about in that moment was protecting this child.”

“We are not your enemy. We are the Thin Blue Line. And WE ARE the only thing standing between Order and Anarchy.”

While claiming that she had been abused by police, Young would also go on to claim the “lost” child in the photo was that of her son.

“They’re attempting to erase what happened — police brutality — and turn it instead into police saviorism,” Riley Ross, one of Young’s attorneys said. “It’s another deep wound that they cut.”

After being informed of the background behind the photo, the National Fraternal Order of Police deleted the post with Young’s child.

Still, as Philly council member Isaiah Thomas asked in February, “Who knows how many people there are who’ve seen that original image, but never actually understood that parent was not involved in some type of looting situation as it was displayed unfortunately on social media?”

See what others are saying: (Philadelphia Inquirer) (USA Today) (ABC News)

Continue Reading

Business

TikTok Works To Block “Devious Lick” Trend That Has Kids Stealing School Equipment

Published

on

Some schools have even threatened to pursue charges against those stealing or destroying school property.


What Is a Devious Lick?

TikTok is taking action against a new trend on the platform that involves users showing off what they consider impressive thefts they’ve pulled off, often at their own schools.

Users on the app refer to these thefts as “devious licks,” and some standout examples include kids stealing school projectors, street signs, microscopes, fire alarms, and pretty much anything you can imagine.

A lot of students also seem to particularly enjoy targeting school bathrooms, stealing paper towels or soap dispensers and even entire toilets or sinks, sometimes leaving bathrooms totally unusable.

Schools Respond

School officials across the country are obviously unhappy with this trend since it’s leaving their schools destroyed and low on equipment that is expensive to repair or replace.

In fact, many have issued warnings calling for the behavior to stop. Along with threats of suspension, some schools have said they will make families pay for the cost of the damage their child creates. Others even said they would get law enforcement involved.

For instance, Aubrey Chancellor, executive director of communications at North East Independent School District in San Antonio Texas, told Fox News, “It’s important for students to understand what they see on social media is not always a good idea in reality.”

“The students involved face disciplinary action and are expected to pay restitution as well. If possible, charges may be filed as well.”

With the trend generating widespread concerns, TikTok issued a statement Wednesday saying, “We are removing this content and redirecting hashtags and search results to our Community Guidelines to discourage such behavior.”

See what others are saying: (NBC News)(Desert News)(Gizmodo)

Continue Reading

Business

Walgreens Is Openly Exposing the Data of Millions Who Registered for COVID Tests, Vox Claims

Published

on

Vox said the issues stem at least as far back as July 2020 but could potentially trace back to April 2020. Anyone signing up for a test with the pharmacy as of Wednesday will be similarly exposed.


Test Data Exposed

Vox’s Recode published an alarming report Monday that accuses Walgreens of exposing and failing to protect the personal data of millions who signed up for COVID-19 tests through its “sloppy” registration system.

That exposed data reportedly includes people’s name, birthday, gender identity, phone number, address, email information, and in some cases, even their test results. All of this “was left on the open web for potentially anyone to see and for the multiple ad trackers on Walgreens’ site to collect,” Recode reporter Sara Morrison said in the article, published Monday. 

According to Morrison, the exposed data potentially stretches as far back as April 2020, which is when Walgreens first began offering COVID-19 tests, but it definitively traces back at least to July 2020 given Recode’s findings.

The Issue Involves Test Confirmation Links

Security experts cited by Morrison said the vulnerabilities are basic issues that Walgreens, one of the largest pharmacy chains in the country, should have known how to prevent.

Essentially, anyone with a link to an appointment confirmation can view the full confirmation. There’s no need to log in or authenticate your identity any other way.

To make the situation even easier for bad actors, the links used to confirm appointments are exactly the same minus a unique patient ID contained in what’s called a “query string.” With millions of tests confirmed, it’s not hard for a hacker or a bot to start finding active pages, though a Morrison noted, it would be “close to impossible” to find a specific person through this method.

Still, it’s not totally impossible to find a specific person. If a patient views their confirmation link on a shared computer, such as one at work or a public library, anyone with the ability to check that computer’s browser history can click on the link and reap the person’s information. 

“Security by obscurity is an awful model for health records,” Sean O’Brien, founder of Yale’s Privacy Lab, told Recode. 

Walgreens Has Not Fixed the Issue

Even after one tech consultant discovered the issue in March and pointed it out to Walgreens multiple times, the company seemingly did nothing, according to Morrison.

From there, Recode said it informed Walgreens of the findings again and even gave it “time to fix the vulnerabilities before publishing” its piece, but once again, the company failed to do anything. 

As of right now, anyone scheduling a COVID test with Walgreens appears to be at the same level of risk as those who previously registered. Not only is that a concerning privacy issue, but it could also discourage many from getting tested. 

In statements to several outlets, Walgreens has not directly addressed the security concerns. For example, it only told Fox Business that it “routinely evaluate[s] our technology solutions in order to provide safe, secure, and accessible digital services to our customers and patients.”

For those seeking COVID tests and potentially discouraged by this news, it is important to remember that Walgreens isn’t the only pharmacy chain offering free tests. Cities and counties across the country are also continuing to offer free testing sites amid a spike in cases caused by the Delta variant.

See what others are saying: (Recode) (Fox Business) (Reuters)

Continue Reading