A proposed state law would require app store operators such as Apple and Google to allow app developers to use their own payment processing systems, thus avoiding fees for the use of systems provided by app stores.
A federal judge found that the social network had not provided adequate evidence to support its complaint of antitrust and other business violations by hosting provider Amazon Web Services.
On Friday, October 23, 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple, Inc., on behalf of Ohio residents, alleging that Apple "promotes, enables, and profits from games downloaded from its App Store. . . that constitute illegal gambling." Plaintiff Sean McCloskey filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, seeking recovery of all money paid through in-app purchases in gambling games made through Apple's App Store, pursuant to Section 3763.02 of the Ohio Revised Code.
On Thursday, August 24, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a ruling on Epic Games, Inc.'s request for temporary restraining order against Apple Inc. The order grants Epic Games' request for a temporary restraining order against Apple from restricting, suspending, or terminating any affiliate of Epic Games from Apple's Developer Program. However, the order denies Epic Games' request for a temporary restraining order against Apple's ban of Epic Games' videogame, Fortnite, from Apple's App Store.
On Wednesday, January 29, 2020, a federal jury reached a verdict in California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited and Apple, Inc, a lawsuit involving alleged patent infringement of the California Institute of Technology's patents on Wi-Fi networking technologies. The jury awarded $1.1 billion in damages to the university for the patent infringement. Specifically, the jury awarded the university $270 million for Broadcom's infringement and $837 million for Apple's infringement.
On Monday, May 13, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. __ (2019). Four iPhone users sued Apple, Inc., alleging that the company monopolized the app market, which resulted in higher-than-competitive prices for apps. Apple argued that the consumer-plaintiffs were barred from suing Apple since the consumer-plaintiffs were not "direct purchasers" from Apple, as defined in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 745-746 (1977). The District Court agreed with Apple, while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and concluded that the consumer-plaintiffs were direct purchasers because they purchased the apps directly from Apple.