United States: Apple Inc. v. Pepper: The Supreme Court Chips Away At Illinois Brick, Allowing iPhone Users To Sue Apple For Monopolizing iPhone Apps

Key Points

  • The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the app developers not Apple.
  • While both the majority and the dissent signaled potential antagonism to Illinois Brick, the plaintiff app purchasers did not ask that it be overruled, focusing instead on having the Court uphold the 9th Circuit’s application of the case.
  • In the short term, the decision permitting the suit to go forward will likely have only marginal practical impact; longer term, this opinion signals that this Court might consider overturning Illinois Brick.

Apple’s App Store

You may be reading this Alert on an iPhone or iPad. If so, you are undoubtedly aware that one of the apps on your device is “the App Store,” where you can find millions of apps you can download for innumerable purposes. By and large, Apple does not create these apps. They are created by independent app developers who contract with Apple to make their apps available in the App Store. The only place on your iPhone or iPad that you can buy these apps, however, is the App Store. When you do buy an app through the App Store, the price has been set by the app developer, but the money you pay goes to Apple, which collects a 30 percent commission and then gives the rest of the money to the app developer. The plaintiffs in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), say that they’ve paid too much for apps because of Apple’s allegedly anticompetitive policy of not allowing app purchasers on Apple devices to buy apps from other platforms. That policy has allowed Apple to make more money by charging a higher commission than it would have in a competitive situation.

But the iPhone owners ran into a legal problem: Illinois Brick Co. v Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), which prohibits federal antitrust suits by indirect purchasers. Apple argued that the commissions it received were from the app developers who then determined what price to charge the app purchasers. In Illinois Brick parlance, the app developers were the “direct purchasers” because they paid a commission ostensibly to use the App Store platform and the plaintiff app purchasers were “indirect purchasers” paying the price determined by the app developers. The district court agreed with Apple and dismissed the suit under Illinois Brick. The 9th Circuit disagreed, finding that the plaintiff app purchasers bought the apps from Apple through the App Store and were thus “direct purchasers” from Apple.

The Illinois Brick Rule: No Damages for Indirect Purchasers in Antitrust Cases

The Supreme Court decided in 1977 that the state of Illinois could not sue Illinois Brick Company, a manufacturer of concrete blocks, because the company sold its products to masonry contractors, who in turn sold the products to general contractors, who in turn sold them to the state. The Court reasoned that the state was too far down the distribution chain and that only the masonry contractors (the direct purchasers) could recover any alleged anticompetitive overcharge by Illinois Brick Company.

The rationale of the decision was essentially one of judicial economy. The Court held that it would be too complicated and too unwieldy for courts to try to determine whether direct purchasers like the masonry contractors passed an alleged overcharge on to others (the general contractors) in whole, in part or not at all and whether the passed-on overcharges were then passed on to the end purchaser state in whole, in part or not at all. This was especially true, in the view of the Court, because a seller defendant like Illinois Brick Company cannot defend against a direct-purchaser suit on the ground that alleged overcharges were “passed on.” Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968).

Diagramming Illinois Brick helps understand what led to the sharp split in Apple v. Pepper.

In the diagram linked above, both the flow of charges (and the alleged overcharges) and the order of purchases go in the same direction. Illinois Brick Company overcharged the masonry contractors, who may or may not have passed it onto others. Also, Illinois Brick Company sold directly to the masonry contractors, who then subsequently sold the overcharged bricks.

The facts of Apple v. Pepper do not fit neatly into this rubric. Please click here to view.

If we focus on the flow of the alleged overcharge, Apple charges a 30 percent commission to app developers, who then set a price that does or does not pass on all (or a portion) of the 30 percent overcharge. In other words, the iPhone owners may pay all, none or some portion of the alleged difference between a competitive commission and the alleged “monopoly” commission that Apple charges. Focusing, instead, on the order of purchases, iPhone owners purchase apps from the App Store, paying Apple, who then passes on the money (minus its commission) to the app developers.

So, then, the key question becomes: Is Illinois Brick about whom the plaintiff paid or is it about whether there are intermediary economic actors between the plaintiff and the defendant that determine whether and to what extent any harm passes to the plaintiff? Justice Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court’s majority said it was the former; Justice Gorsuch and the dissent, the latter. Reading the tea leaves, the only thing on which the justices seem to agree is that Illinois Brick may be due for reconsideration.

Majority and Dissent Split on Which Relationship Matters

Justice Kavanaugh’s short opinion for the majority can be summarized as follows: iPhone users buy apps directly from Apple through the App Store. Therefore, under Illinois Brick, they are direct purchasers. “All of that seems simple enough.”1

Though the case is all about how to apply Illinois Brick, the majority opinion does not start with Illinois Brick. Rather, it starts by quoting Section 4 of the Clayton Act, which “provides that any person who shall be injured in his business or property” may sue for harms under the antitrust laws.2 “The broad text of § 4,” the opinion continues, “readily covers consumers who purchased goods or services at higher-than-competitive prices from an allegedly monopolistic retailer.”3

The opinion then turns to Illinois Brick and describes it as simply creating a “bright-line,” “straightforward” rule that direct purchasers may seek damages, while those “who are two or more steps removed from the antitrust violator in a distribution chain may not sue.”4 “The iPhone owners pay the alleged overcharge directly to Apple. The absence of an intermediary is dispositive.”5 For the majority, Illinois Brick is about the privity relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The opposite is true for the dissent. For Justice Gorsuch and the other dissenters, Illinois Brick is about the economic pass-through and is born out of the practical difficulties of calculating damages where harm is filtered through an economic intermediary.6 “Plaintiffs can be injured only if the developers are able and choose to pass on the overcharge to them in the form of higher app prices that the developers alone control.”7 Like Illinois Brick, most of the dissent is devoted to explaining the difficulties attendant to calculating how much of the monopolistic surplus would be passed on to the plaintiffs.8 For the dissenters, Illinois Brick is about the economic relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant; if there is an intermediate economic actor who can alternatively absorb or pass through the supracompetitive price, that actor is the only proper plaintiff.

Despite Disagreeing on the Outcome, They Might Agree on Illinois Brick

There appeared to be agreement from both opinions that Illinois Brick should probably be reconsidered. At oral argument, justices in both the majority and the dissent questioned the decision’s continued viability and the wisdom of overturning it. In both opinions, the justices took some subtle and not-so-subtle swipes at Illinois Brick and signaled that they believe the case is worth reconsidering. For instance, in the majority opinion, as noted, Justice Kavanaugh starts with a textual analysis based on the phrase “any person” in Section 4 of the Clayton Act.9  This notion patently rejects the central rationale of Illinois Brick, that courts should not engage in the difficult task of splitting up supracompetitive rents among downstream actors.10 As Justice Gorsuch notes, “Maybe the Court proceeds as it does today because it just disagrees with Illinois Brick.11

Potentially signaling agreement, the dissent recounts arguments from amici in favor of overturning Illinois Brick and declares, “Maybe there is something to these arguments; maybe not.”12 Yet the plaintiffs did not ask the court to do so; in fact, they explicitly disavowed that they were seeking an overruling at oral argument.13 Thus, the dissent noted, the Court did not have the benefit of full briefing on the “many hard questions” that would need to be answered. But it is hard to read either the majority or the dissent as particularly fond of Illinois Brick.

Practical Considerations Moving Forward

While this case will get a lot of attention, we do not expect it to have a tremendous impact on litigation outside the technology space in the near term. For now, the law of the land is that courts will simply ask “did the plaintiff purchase the product directly from the defendant?” If the answer is “yes,” they are a direct purchaser. For markets involving tangible goods, this represents little change; like Illinois Brick, both the privity and economic relationships will run in parallel.

Indeed, the decision likely has little effect on the thorny Illinois Brick issues pending in lower courts. For example, the 7th Circuit is currently considering whether Illinois Brick bars suits by health care provider hospitals and clinics where the nominal direct purchasers (medical product distributors) are part of an alleged conspiracy with the manufacturers of medical products. See Marion Healthcare, LLC, et al. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., et al., No. 18-3735 (7th Cir.). Despite both cases hinging on Illinois Brick, Apple v. Pepper offers little, if any, guidance to the 7th Circuit’s determination of whether Illinois Brick applies where the plaintiff purchased products from an alleged antitrust conspirator but not directly from the alleged manufacturer monopolist. 

Even within the technology space, Apple (and companies like it) should be able to avoid such suits as a matter of prospective liability by changing the flow of payments from its App Store, so that they go to the app developers who then pay a commission to Apple.

Longer term, plaintiff class action lawyers will likely be emboldened to engage in a litigation strategy that seeks to overturn Illinois Brick, which would enable indirect purchasers to seek damages under federal antitrust laws. While significant, this would not be an entirely watershed outcome: Many states have laws that already allow indirect purchaser lawsuits, and national antitrust class actions are routinely accompanied by indirect purchaser class actions based on state law.


1 Pepper, Slip Op. at 7.

2 Id. at 4 (emphasis in original, quotation marks omitted).

3 Id. at 5.

4 Pepper, Slip Op. at 5–6.

5 Id. at 6.

6 Pepper dissenting opinion at 4–6.

7 Id. at 5.

8 Id. at 5–7.

9 Pepper, Slip Op. at 5.

10 Id. at 9–10.

11 Pepper dissenting opinion at 9.

12 Note, at oral argument, Justice Gorsuch himself seemed to advocate that the Court should explore overturning Illinois Brick.

13 Tr. of Oral Arg. 40.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions