Flash Flood Watch in effect through 7:00 a.m. Saturday

Supreme Court: iPhone owners can sue Apple for monopolizing App Store

A group of iPhone owners accusing Apple of violating US antitrust rules because of its App Store monopoly can sue the company, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in the majority opinion, said when "retailers engage in unlawful anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers," people buying those companies' products have the right to hold the businesses to account.

"That is why we have antitrust law," Kavanaugh wrote. The court's four liberal justices joined Kavanaugh in the 5-4 decision.

The Supreme Court opinion notably does not accuse Apple of violating antitrust law: It holds that consumers have the right to sue the company for monopolistic behavior, because they purchase apps directly from Apple.

The ruling could have wide implications for other tech companies that operate similarly walled-off online storefronts, said Gene Kimmelman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge and a former Justice Department antitrust official.

"It definitely should make tech companies wonder how the antitrust laws will be applied going forward in an online platform environment," Kimmelman said.

The case stems from a 2011 class-action suit by iPhone owners alleging that by taking a 30% cut of app sales, Apple has encouraged app developers to raise their prices in response. Consumers have been harmed by the practice, the suit claimed, because Apple does not allow customers to download apps from any other source other than the iTunes App Store. Unlike Android, iOS customers can only get apps from that official source, which Apple says serves as kind of quality control to weed out security threats and apps that violate the company's terms of service.

Apple argued that the iPhone owners do not have the right to sue because Apple is an intermediary. But the Supreme Court held that iPhone owners have a "direct purchaser" relationship with Apple, and may sue under a precedent known as Illinois Brick.

Had Apple been allowed to set the terms of the legal fight, the court said, it would have hindered the ability of consumers to seek relief from alleged monopolists.

"Apple's line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits," the opinion said.

Antitrust experts also welcomed the Court's reasoning that allowing Apple to avoid the class-action suit "would provide a roadmap" for others to evade the law.

"A victory for antitrust enforcement!" tweeted Sally Hubbard, director of enforcement strategy at Open Markets, a think tank that has criticized the tech industry as being too powerful and concentrated.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the customers' likelihood of success — only that they have the right to sue. Apple argued that it was not a monopoly, rather a platform for app developers who can set their own prices. It has said that if the court allowed the case to proceed, it would disrupt the e-commerce market.

Apple's stock fell 5.3% on the news. The broader market was down more than 2% Monday.

-- CNN's Ariane de Vogue and Steve Vladeck contributed to this report

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.