Venmo un Cash App pretmonopola lieta pret Apple Falls Flat tiesā

In a court ruling, a United States District Judge, Vince Chhabria, threw out an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The lawsuit brought by the customers of the Venno and Skaidras lietotne argued that Apple Cash employed Anticompetitive practices. The lawsuit was filed on November 17, 2023, in San Jose, and it charged Apple with monopolistic practices through the iOS App Store. The plaintiffs claimed Apple prevented rivals from incorporating novel features such as decentralized cryptocurrency payments.

The complaint claimed that Apple’s App Store policies stop services like Venmo and Cash App from providing attractive pricing and improved functionalities. These restrictions deprived benefits of iOS end users, as alleged by plaintiffs. Yet the court held that the lawsuit did not have considerable evidence of violations of antitrust. Judge Chhabria emphasized several problems with the plaintiffs’ claims, such as their failure to identify Apple’s antitrust actions.

Apple App Store Guidelines Upheld in Court

The case filing stated that the lawsuit was defective because of the speculative claims and flawed premises. The court asked why competitors like šūna, who are operating in the same market, have not been mentioned in the allegation. It also disregarded the relevance of Guideline 3.1.5 of the App Store Terms of Service, which the plaintiffs claimed was an obstacle to integrating cryptocurrency functions in their products. The judge has refused the guideline’s adequacy for the allegations of the suit.

The ruling of Judge Chhabria stressed the inability of the plaintiff to show how following App Store guidelines amounted to an illegal agreement. The dismissal casts question upon the likelihood of success of any amendments that the plaintiffs may proffer. The court’s filing shows that the plaintiffs’ claims have been thoroughly examined and that Apple’s App Store policies have been comprehensively scrutinized.

Plaintiffs Given 21 Days to Amend Lawsuit

The plaintiffs now have 21 days to respond to the court’s concerns by altering their suit. It creates a window for them to work on their arguments and maybe resurrect the lawsuit. The dismissal with leave granted order of the court is a prudent approach, since it does not preclude the possibility of a legal issue that was overlooked.

Nevertheless, the last words of the judge in the motion suggest the challenge that awaits the complainants. With several issues flagged by Apple’s motion to dismiss, the road to amendment of the complaint seems too long. The direction of the court indicates that substantial changes are needed to meet the preliminary objections and advance the case.

Lasīt arī: Fidelity Moves ar S-1 failu Ethereum ETF un Staking

✓ Kopīgot:

Maksvels ir kriptoekonomikas analītiķis un blokķēdes entuziasts, kurš aizrautīgi cenšas palīdzēt cilvēkiem izprast decentralizētās tehnoloģijas potenciālu. Es daudz rakstu daudzās publikācijās par tādām tēmām kā blokķēde, kriptovalūta, marķieri un citas. Mans mērķis ir izplatīt zināšanas par šo revolucionāro tehnoloģiju un tās ietekmi uz ekonomisko brīvību un sociālo labumu.

Piedāvātajā saturā var būt ietverts autora personīgais viedoklis, un tas ir atkarīgs no tirgus nosacījumiem. Pirms ieguldāt kriptovalūtās, veiciet savu tirgus izpēti. Autors vai publikācija neuzņemas nekādu atbildību par jūsu personīgajiem finansiālajiem zaudējumiem.