[nl]

The article explicitly says “accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone apps“

I’ve never heard of a market being divided up like that legally. But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.

[AnssiH]

Sounds similar to what EU EC did with Google's anti-trust fine case, i.e. they considered Google to be dominant in the market of "app stores for the Android mobile operating system" (along with some other markets).

Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

[detaro]

> But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.

From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.

[BurritoAlPastor]

Correct. From Apple’s original petition:

“The question presented is: Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.”

[belltaco]

Not true, nothing ever goes to the Supreme court without a lower court considering and rendering a decision on the same question. Otherwise the court would be swamped and unable to function.

[detaro]

I think you misunderstood the thread. Of course the question asked to the Supreme Court has been looked at in detail by the lower courts, but other questions in the case haven't yet.