Apple fends off iTunes/iPod class action lawsuit

Jonny Evans
|
August 13, 2009
|
Share

Apple has prevailed in a long-standing iTunes action which claims the company has acted monopolistically in the way iTunes works seamlessly with the iPod/iPhone family, and no other devices.

The complaint alleges illegal "tying" in violation of the Sherman Act, monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act, and violations of California's Cartwright Act, unfair-competition law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

U.S. District Judge James Ware of the Northern District of California denied certification of a damages class in the suit, a decision which reflected the credibility of the expert witnesses fielded as part of the hearing which attempted to secure class action status for the case.

The lawsuit describes Apple as holding 83 per cent of the US online music market, 75 per cent of online video and over 90 per cent of the market for hard drive-based music players.

The lawsuit alleges Apple has used its dominance in these three markets to create a closed system in which the iPod will play only files purchased from iTunes, and iTunes files will work only on the iPod. The argument rests on whether Apple has restricted consumer choice in its business behaviours.

(Let’s skip iTunes Plus, as music was sold in proprietary DRM-shrouded format at the time this case was filed).

Plaintiff Stacie Somers was attempting to certify both a damages class and an injunctive class action on behalf of everyone in the US who bought an iPod between Dec. 31, 2003 and whatever future date this case ends.

The case is: Somers v. Apple Inc., No. C 07-06507 JW, 2009 WL 2137148 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div. July 17, 2009).

You can view the entire 24 page filing here.

Comments (11)

Deep (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 1:53am

They did what to who?!?!? Nice title.

Tom (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 2:24am

Just look at actual sales numbers for music, and take into account Amazon for exanple and you can see it's not a monopoly. They've moved towards removing DRM too.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 3:49am

Go Apple!

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 5:32am

I don't see how anyone can claim "the iPod will play only files purchased from iTunes"

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 7:42pm

Yeah, i have some songs from amazon on my ipod. So, i dont know how they can make that claim.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 5:42am

Stacie Somers, so much for your get rich quick scheme. Now go get a job like the rest of us. The only thing these bullshit lawsuits do is drive up the price and screw the happy customers.

I want to thank the Northern District of California for putting this (insert insulting curse words here) in her place.

ulfoaf | August 13, 2009 - 7:22am

What a waste of court time. It isn't like there is no choice except buying from Apple, or only in their chosen format!

Apples DRM was just a formality to stop the lazy. You could burn to CD and then rip back anyway.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 9:24am

How is it possible that someone can claim that "iPod will play only files purchased from iTunes" when from the beginning you've been able to rip your existing CDs into iTunes or if you already have a collection of AAC, Audible, MP3s, AIFF, or WAV files you can add them into iTunes. I don't see iTunes is restrictive from that context. There are other online vendors of music from Amazon, eMusic, to many, many others. Most of the vendors out there offer DRM-free MP3s which work/imports just fine into iTunes.

I don't see how Apple DRM is any different than Microsoft DRM music. DRM was something that the Music Industry pushed onto both Apple and Microsoft. It is they that are limiting choice not Apple/Microsoft. Now that we have DRM-free music from most online vendors at this point I would say that lawsuit is years late at best.

As far as the "monopoly" charge, people seem to forget what a true monopoly is. Seems that people need to go read a dictionary. It is NOT illegal to have high market share of a particular market if that share was gained by making a better widget than the rest of your competition (Apple). It IS illegal to put up barriers to prevent other companies from competing against you (Microsoft).

1. A situation, by legal privilege or other agreement, in which solely one party (company, cartel etc.) exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it.
(e.g. local telecom companies)

An exclusive control over the trade or production of a commodity or service trough exclusive possession.

The privilege granting the exclusive right to exert such control granting monopolies in concession constitutes a market-conform alternative to taxation for the state, while the crown sometimes bestowed a monopoly as an outrageous gift. (e.g. local TV affiliates who get free frequency space in exchange for free public annoucements etc.)

El appleDiablo (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 1:47pm

Its a misguided effort yes but someone has to at least 'try' to bitch slap the proprietary demon that these clowns have become! If apple didnt have users arms twisted behind their back so far they got lost - lets see how well they would do without all the star spangled hardware. I liken their attitude to Sony and all their mighty successful locked media formats! LOL assclowns!

Neil Anderson (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 6:27pm

Well at least she didn't say it caught fire.

Jocca (not verified) | August 13, 2009 - 10:50pm

90% of the music I have on my iPod is ripped from the CD collection I owned. How did these clowns managed to get this ridiculous lawsuit started in the first place? Must be because Apple is so wealthy that anything to get to that pot of money is worth the effort, whether it is merited or not.