U.S. top court mulls Apple's App Store commissions in antitrust case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up Apple Inc's bid to escape a lawsuit accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications and causing consumers to pay more than they should.
The justices said they would hear Apple's appeal of a lower court's ruling that revived the proposed class-action lawsuit by iPhone buyers over commissions that the Cupertino, California-based technology company receives through its App Store.
The case could expand the threat of antitrust damages against companies in the rapidly growing field of electronic commerce, which generates hundreds of billions of dollars annually in U.S. retail sales.
President Donald Trump's administration backed Apple and urged the justices to take the case.
Also at The Hill and The Register.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday June 19 2018, @03:45PM (2 children)
Don't forget the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [wikipedia.org] which goes beyond any other "independent agency" in bypassing accountability and constitutional protection against government abuse, and would have gone much further if the courts had allowed CFPB directors to appoint their own replacements.
I think that last part bears more consideration. The CFPB has independent funding (through the Federal Reserve) and very limited control by the President through appointment of the head of the organization. That was in turn threatened by the then Director Richard Cordray appointing a fellow CFPB employee, Leandra English as "acting director". I don't believe that was a whim of the moment shenanigan, but something that had been planned for years, should a Republican win the office after Obama left. For if it worked, then the organization would be effectively out of reach of the US President (since acting directors could merely appoint more acting directors as time went on) until something radical and probably unconstitutional was attempted or he could get a majority of Congress to undo the law (unlikely since the Democrats would be hiding behind the shield of "consumer protection").
Now for those who don't think much of this problem, consider what might happen if the CIA (which is already an "independent agency", but not as independent as the CFPB) or the US military were to develop similar systems of evading accountability and control. I think it would mean the end of democracy in the short term.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:37PM (1 child)
So in khallow's world, the CFPB is more frightening than the CIA and the military industrial complex, the latter being merely hypothetical, short-term threats to democracy. Very interesting.
Congress is always to blame anyway, whether it's the CFPB or the AUMF. Congress is bought and paid for. Nobody but their owners expect anything from them and they actively avoid doing their job by delegating their authority. When the executive branch runs amok (with or without direction straight from the president) Congress are the ones that should be doing something about it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:50AM
Yes, and it should be in shortscreen's world too. The CFPB is a precedent for creating all sorts of unaccountable, powerful government entities in the US, which at present is the most powerful government in a variety of ways in the world. not least through its military and intelligence services.
Exactly. It is worse for that reason alone.
Obama had veto power.
Create an intelligence version of the CFPB and you'll know who the owner of Congress is.
CFPB almost became something that wasn't accountable to either the legislative or executive branch.