In response, Apple argued that users did not have any standing to sue Apple because apps are sold by individual developers, and that Apple simply provides the storefront for developers, in return for a cut of app sales.
Judge William A Flethcher ruled users purchase apps from Apple, which gives them the right to file lawsuits against the company.
Now, a USA federal appeals court has ruled that people do indeed have the right to sue Apple over limiting iOS devices to apps from the App Store.
"We conclude that any error, if indeed there was error, in the district court's consideration of the merits of Apple's Rule motion to dismiss for lack of statutory standing was harmless", the panel wrote.
[T] he Court finds that the 30% figure for which Plaintiffs complain is not a fixed fee. but a cost passed-on to consumers by independent software developers.
Allegations in regards to the App Store "monopoly" have yet to be heard by the courts, with the suit now able to proceed. "Apple discourages iPhone owners from downloading unapproved apps, threatening to void iPhone warranties if they do so".
Well, good luck with trying to get Apple to understand that reasoning.
However, the case filed just recently isn't exactly about Apple doing the monopolizing, but rather just a ruling about people gaining the rights to sue Apple and this happens to be already reached, letting the previous case resume. Apple's description of its role as that similar to the owner of a shopping mall that leases physical space to stores was "unconvincing", as third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their own stores, he added.
There's currently no date set for a decision on the original case of whether or not Apple has monopolized the iOS app market, but it will now move forward thanks to today's ruling. The goal here is obviously to get Apple to pay out and in this case, the suit will be pressing for "hundreds of millions" of United States dollars.