Apple and Ireland begin appealing €14.3bn tax bill

Lawyers representing Apple and the Irish Government has begun their arguments in the EU’s lower General Court in an attempt to protect the suspect corporate tax environment.

In 2016, the European Commission ordered the Irish Government to collect back-taxes off Apple to the tune of €14.3 billion, including interest. Apple does not want to pay tax. Ireland does not want to collect it. Europe wants a level playing field. The lawyers are looking forward to nuance to bolster their bank accounts.

During the opening arguments, Apple’s lawyers suggested the European Commission decision “defies reality and common sense,” according to Reuters. Both the iPhone manufacturer and the Irish Government will argue against the decision to tax environment contravenes state aid rules.

Let’s be clear. Ireland is a tax haven. It is facilitating corporate tax avoidance. It is helping corporates collect greater profits without rewarding the societies they strain. Irish Government officials should be embarrassed they are helping technology giants abuse its European partners, the very same European partners which bailed it out of financial doomsday a decade ago.

This is a selfish position, and just at the time when the country is looking to Europe to protect it as Brexit looms large on the horizon.

Some might argue the Irish Government is entitled to charge whatever tax it wants. However, a modern society works because the general public and corporations pay taxes. It pays for roads, schools, hospitals, police officers and postal workers. There are technology giants out there who are asking consumers to strain their wallets further each year and care less about their right to privacy, but they are not willing to contribute to the societies which are fuelling the monstrous profits reported every three months.

With international borders being broken down, much to the distaste of some, irregular taxation policies can be taken advantage of. This is what is happening here. It beggars belief that Ireland can argue the benefits of the single economy, and still maintain this position, weakening the position of partners, depriving them of much needed taxes.

This is not the position the European Commission has taken, but it is the one each of Ireland’s partners in Europe should. Why should Ireland be able to collect all the benefits of Apple’s assaults on the European digital economy when it is citizens of every other nation which is fuelling the iLeader’s growth?

For some, it might sound bizarre that the Irish Government doesn’t want to collect €14.3 billion off Apple, but there are two reasons for this.

Firstly, if the Irish lawyers were not to fight back against the enforced tax run, it is effectively conceded to the assertion that it is a corporate tax haven. The last thing the Irish Government wants to do is admit that it is helping the already richly rewarded residents of Silicon Valley rip-off neighbouring governments further with creative tax strategies.

Secondly, Ireland needs to ensure it is viewed as a friendly corporate-tax environment moving forward if it is to continue to attract corporations to its borders. Ireland doesn’t necessarily have the best talent, it doesn’t have the largest economy and it doesn’t have a local supply chain for manufacturing. It needs a plug to interest the likes of Apple, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Twitter, Pinterest, PayPal and Amazon to house their European HQ in the country.

The value of the technology industry to both the Irish Government and society should not be undervalued. The Irish economy entered severe recession in 2008, and then an economic depression in 2009. The country was in tatters, though it was saved by the technology industry.

Over the last decade, technology giants thrived in the tax haven, creating new jobs directly and indirectly, and continues to be one of the biggest drivers today. Silicon Docks is as important to Dublin as Silicon Valley is to California.

That said, the European Commission does not agree this dynamic should be allowed to continue.

Should the Irish Government continue this favourable tax regime for certain companies, a competitive advantage is offered. The Commission, ably led by Margrethe Vestager, has been tackling anti-competitive business practises for years. If such a monstrous company like Apple is given a competitive advantage, state aid to run riot, start-ups will always be on the back-foot. Competition will likely never emerge, and the consumer will be in a precarious position.

Over the next couple of days, lawyers representing Apple and the Irish Government will argue against the opinion of the European Commission, attempting to overturn an order to collect back-taxes and create a more reasonable tax environment. It will argue that it is perfectly reasonable for it to help Apple bleed the consumer dry and then hide profits from governments who are asking for a fair contribution back to society to pay nurses.

Ireland should be embarrassed.

50 US Attorney Generals sign-up to Google antitrust investigation

Usually, when you put 50 lawyers in a room together, it’s a bloodbath, but Google has seemingly done the impossible; united them all behind a single cause.

Led by Ken Paxton, the Attorney General representing the State of Texas, the coalition brings all except two State Attorney General’s on board, California and Alabama, as well as the legal minds representing Washington DC and Puerto Rico.

“Now, more than ever, information is power, and the most important source of information in Americans’ day-to-day lives is the internet,” said Paxton. “When most Americans think of the internet, they no doubt think of Google.

“There is nothing wrong with a business becoming the biggest game in town if it does so through free market competition, but we have seen evidence that Google’s business practices may have undermined consumer choice, stifled innovation, violated users’ privacy, and put Google in control of the flow and dissemination of online information. We intend to closely follow the facts we discover in this case and proceed as necessary.”

Paxton has pointed out in the statements that the Government and its agencies does not have an issue with a dominant market player (we don’t believe this however), but it must maintain this dominance by playing within the rules. This is where Paxton believes Google has become non-compliant with US law; it is stifling competition and the choice for consumers.

The difficulty the legal coalition will face in this investigation to start with is the reason behind Google’s market domination; it offers the best search service on the web. Some might disagree, but we believe it is the most effective and accurate internet search engine available. This will be one of the reasons behind the continued dominance, though there are of course others; these other factors will determine whether Google is abusing this position of dominance.

One area which might become of interest to the Attorney Generals is the roll of acquisitions in maintaining this leadership position. Of course, M&A is a perfectly valid means of growing a business, though should such transactions be deemed as a means for Google to kill off any competition which could potentially emerge, this would be a violation of antitrust laws.

This is where the probes will find it very difficult to fight against Google and the other giants of Silicon Valley; can anything be done against potentially anti-competitive acquisitions? In the Google case, some might suggest it shouldn’t have been allowed to acquire both Android and YouTube to supplement its PC search advertising business. This suggestion is of course made with hindsight, though there will be some who will attempt to do something about it.

Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senator for Massachusetts and potential opponent for President Trump in the 2020 Elections, has already promised to break-up the tech giants. FTC Chairman Joe Simons is another who has the divestment ambition, though he has stated it would have to be done sooner rather than later, as Big Tech is manoeuvring assets and operations in an attempt to make any divestments almost impossible.

What this investigation does offer is another layer of scrutiny placed on the internet giants. This investigation might well be directed at Google, but any precedent which is set could be applied to the other residents of Silicon Valley.

When you actually stand back and look at the investigations which are on-going, the US Government is creating a swiss cheese model of legal nightmares for the internet giants. The more layers which are applied, the less likely Big Tech can squeeze through the legal loopholes and come out unscathed on the other end. The likes of Google will have the finest legal minds on the payroll, but the legal assaults are coming quickly, and from all angles.

Aside from this investigation, Google has also recently confirmed it is at the centre of a Department of Justice probe and is also facing the House Judiciary Committee’s examination into big tech antitrust. And then it will have to consider the potential implications of other enquiries.

Facebook is being investigated by the FTC for its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram, as is the House Judiciary Committee. New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking whether the social media giant has damaged the consumers lives through its operations. Finally, the House Financial Services Committee as well as the Senate Banking Committee is investigating the Facebook push into cryptocurrency.

At Amazon, the FTC is investigating how the eCommerce giant competes against and aids third-party sellers on its platform, while at Apple, the House Judiciary Committee probe is attempting to understand whether the commission it takes from developers through the App Store is anti-competitive.

Each of these investigations will create precedent which can be applied to others in the Silicon Valley fraternity. It also gives any failed attempts to limit the potential of Big Tech another opportunity. There are plenty of irons in the fire and Silicon Valley will do well to avoid a branding altogether.

With the sheer volume, breadth and depth of investigations scrutinising the business models of the internet giants, it is starting to become impossible to believe the regulatory status quo will be maintained. The sun might be setting on the Wild West Web.

To date, Silicon Valley has enjoyed what should be considered a very light-touch regulatory environment. For us, there are two reasons for this.

Firstly, regulators and legislators simply could not keep up with the progress being made by the technology industry, or perhaps did not foresee the influence these giants might be able to wield. Whether it is a shortage of bodies, skilled workers being snapped up by private industry or simply too many different segments to regulate, the progress of technology leapt ahead of the rules which were supposed to govern it. The internet giants have been profiting greatly off this regulatory and legislative void.

Secondly, you have to wonder whether regulators and legislators actually wanted to put the reigns on the digital economy and the power houses normalising it in the eyes of the consumer. These companies are driving economic growth and creating jobs. The US is at the forefront of an industry which will dominate the world for decades to come; why would the Government want to stifle the industry which is keeping the US economy at the head of the international community.

With both of these explanations, perhaps it has gotten to a point where excess is being realised. The technology industry has become too powerful and it needs to be reigned in. Some might argue that Silicon Valley has more influence than Washington, which will make some in Government feel very uneasy.

Verizon sues City of Rochester over 5G fees

US telco Verizon has filed a lawsuit against the City of Rochester, suggesting a newly created telecommunications code violates federal law and the maximum fees telcos can be charged.

Filed in the District Court for Western New York, Verizon’s lawyers will be attempting to argue that the implementation of the new telecommunications code by the city will prohibit the rollout of 5G technologies in the area. This is of course early days, though it could go some way in creating legal precedent throughout the US.

Using FCC rules which were passed last September, Verizon will argue the newly adopted telecommunications code in the City of Rochester violates the maximum fee of $270 a year which can be charged by the local governments. Although we were unable to figure out how much each site could cost Verizon annually, it does appear to run into the thousands.

“To better serve its customers and the City and to begin to serve new customers and provide new services, Verizon Wireless seeks to extend, densify, and upgrade its wireless network infrastructure, including to install additional Small Wireless Facilities to support the provision of current and next-generation telecommunications services such as 5G and to deploy fiber to connect these facilities,” the filing states.

“To successfully do this, Verizon Wireless requires new approvals from Defendant to access City property.

“As a result of Defendant’s actions, Verizon Wireless has been, and will continue to be, damaged and irreparably harmed absent the relief requested herein. The harm caused by Defendant’s unlawful actions includes, but is not limited to, an effective prohibition on Verizon Wireless’s ability to provide telecommunications services in the affected area of the City.”

Similar to regulatory changes in the UK with the new Electronic Communications Code, the FCC is attempting to protect the interests of the telcos. As real-estate owners know the telcos have no choice but to increase the number of cell sites to provide the promised 5G experience to consumers, they are in a position of power. The new rules from the FCC, and the creation of the $270 annual limit, is supposed to create a responsible transaction which benefits both parties.

However, it does not appear the City of Rochester agrees with the position of the FCC. In creating its own telecommunications code, it does appear higher fees can be charged for cell sites, while some officials state they are attempting to reduce potential clutter and eyesores created by the additional mobile infrastructure.

Looking at the timeline, Verizon wrote to city officials to ask for revisions to the code on January 10 and February 7, before the code was enacted on February 20 without any amendments, taking effect on April 1. Another letter was sent on April 15 questioning whether the code was compliant with federal law, with city officials finally responding on April 30 suggesting they were happy with the set-up. On July 30, the city officials demanded payment from the telco.

In short, Verizon is claiming the fees are acting as a prohibitor to the delivery of connectivity in the city, therefore federal law is being violated.

What is worth noting, that due to the focus on mmWave for the delivery of 5G services in the US, more cell sites will have to be deployed. This is unavoidable, as to deliver the higher speed promised by 5G, higher-frequency airwaves will have to be utilised. This does not appear to be a problem, however coverage distance will have to be sacrificed leading to the densification plans set-forward by the telcos.

Although this is the first lawsuit of this nature which has been brought to our attention, we suspect there are numerous other local governments attempting to sweat public assets to secure more funding. This is one of the first, but this might become quite a common lawsuit to read about over the coming months and years, as densification strategies gather momentum.

Justice Department green-lights T-Mobile US/Sprint merger

This might sound like the end of the road for one of the most protracted merger processes in recent memory, but T-Mobile US and Sprint will still have to deal with the backlog of legal challenges.

Although this is certainly a win for the duo, it did look ominous for quite a while and there are still a few legal challenges which will have to be dealt with. That said, this is a victory for T-Mobile US and Sprint, and a positive step-forward in the ambition to tackle the market dominance of AT&T and Verizon.

“With this merger and accompanying divestiture, we are expanding output significantly by ensuring that large amounts of currently unused or underused spectrum are made available to American consumers in the form of high quality 5G networks,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.

“Today’s settlement will provide Dish with the assets and transitional services required to become a facilities-based mobile network operator that can provide a full range of mobile wireless services nationwide.”

In short, without the divestment of Sprint’s prepaid mobile business to Dish, the deal would not have gone ahead. What this announcement now creates is a merger player with a larger horde of spectrum ready to tackle the 5G era and a fourth player which can start to make use of the spectrum licenses it has been quietly accumulating over the last few years.

For Dish, deadlines were fast approaching. After securing various spectrum licenses in the mid- and high-band frequencies, authorities were starting to get a bit irate with the lack of action. Spectrum is a valuable resource in the digital economy and a threat had been made; make use of the assets or hand them back. The acquisition of the boost brand should allow Dish to make a run at the mobile world. It will now have seven years to make use of the T-Mobile/Sprint network while it deploys its own.

Of course, while the end is in sight there are still another couple of headaches to deal with.

Several State Attorney Generals have aired their grievances and filed a lawsuit opposing the deal. The primary concern here was the reduction of national telcos from four to three, though it seems they are still not happy with concessions made to create a fourth player in Dish.

“The promises made by Dish and T-Mobile in this deal are the kinds of promises only robust competition can guarantee,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has led the opposition.

“We have serious concerns that cobbling together this new fourth mobile player, with the government picking winners and losers, will not address the merger’s harm to consumers, workers, and innovation.”

The coalition of State Attorney Generals have reaffirmed their opposition to the merger, questioning whether the formation of a new MNO which has no experience in managing a mobile network is a suitable replacement for Sprint. Elsewhere, the Rural Wireless Association is also opposing the approval.

“Expecting Dish, a start-up mobile carrier in its infancy, to be able to compete as a fourth nationwide network, with divested wireless assets from Sprint and T-Mobile and Boost MVNO customers, and subject only to a handful of requirements that will expire, spells disaster for American consumers,” the RWA said in a statement.

“Three years is not nearly enough time to launch a facilities-based network. Clearly, DOJ has no idea what it takes to build a competitive nationwide mobile network.”

Gaining approval from the Department of Justice might have been one of the more difficult tasks on this quest, but this is not the end of the road for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

New York rages against T-Mobile/Sprint merger

Things are already looking dicey for the proposed merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint, and then New York’s Attorney General wades into the saga with scathing opinions.

“This is exactly the sort of consumer-harming, job-killing megamerger our antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” said Attorney General Letitia James.

Support for the merger is pretty rare nowadays, though James and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra have filed a multi-State lawsuit to add more fuel to the flames. In total, ten States have been included in the lawsuit, compounding the headaches induced by an already prolonged approval process.

The omens are not looking particularly positive for T-Mobile US and Sprint.

“When it comes to corporate power, bigger isn’t always better,” said James. “The T-Mobile and Sprint merger would not only cause irreparable harm to mobile subscribers nationwide by cutting access to affordable, reliable wireless service for millions of Americans, but would particularly affect lower-income and minority communities here in New York and in urban areas across the country.

“That’s why we are going to court to stop this merger and protect our consumers, because this is exactly the sort of consumer-harming, job-killing megamerger our antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”

T-Mobile US and Sprint are promising a cheaper and faster service, as well as a challenge to the dominance of AT&T and Verizon, but this isn’t enough to convince the legal heavyweights. It’s the same argument which is evident throughout the world of mergers and acquisitions; four to three does not encourage optimism.

Perhaps the most damning argument against the merger is market trends over the last decade. According to the US Labor Department, the average cost of mobile service has fallen by roughly 28% over the last decade, while mobile data consumption has grown rapidly. T-Mobile US and Sprint might argue a merger is better in the long-run for competition, but there is an old saying; if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

With four telcos competing for valuable post-paid subscriptions, the consumer does appear to be winning. Tariffs are expensive in the US, though they are becoming cheaper. Another interesting aspect to the lawsuit points to some skulduggery from the duo.

The Attorneys General’s investigation into the merger found that many of the claimed benefits were unverifiable and could only be delivered years into the future, if ever. Specifically, the AG’s are referring to the lightening speeds promised and the ease at which the duo believes a 5G network can be rolled out nationwide. This isn’t necessarily stating it is not possible, just that the claim is not supported by evidence.

For a decision which is likely going to be based on evidence provided, this is a very simple, but powerful argument for blocking the merger.

DoJ antitrust chief readies for battle against big tech

There have been plenty of whispers in the back alleys of Silicon Valley of the antitrust boogeyman and now the nightmares are turning into reality.

Speaking at an industry conference in Israel, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim outlined his views on competitiveness in the technology industry. Those who were anticipating an antitrust battle in the US can feel suitably vindicated, as Delrahim effectively confirms he has Google and Apple firmly in the crosshairs.

“The digital economy is a fact of life, but it is not all things to all people,” said Delrahim. “There has been robust public discussion about whether the broader economy, undoubtedly transformed by digital technologies, is working well for everyone.”

Although this is not necessarily shocking news, it is a nuanced confirmation of the up-coming assault against big tech.

Last week, the US took the first tentative steps towards addressing the influence of technology on today’s society. The House Antitrust Subcommittee announced the launch of a bipartisan investigation into competition in digital markets, potentially offering a threat to solid foundation of the technology giants. Diluting the dominance of big tech is going to be a very difficult task, but it does appear the groundwork is being laid.

In this speech, Delrahim is effectively outlining the Department of Justice’s plan, as well as the justification for tackling big tech.

“Where there are credible concerns that a transaction or business practice is anticompetitive, timely and effective antitrust enforcement is imperative,” said Delrahim.

“…After all, the government’s successful antitrust case against Microsoft arguably paved the way for companies like Google, Yahoo, and Apple to enter the market with their own desktop and mobile products.”

Microsoft’s dominance of the technology world in the 90s should not be underplayed and perhaps can be very accurately likened to Google’s influence today. Although the US Government was not successful in breaking-up Microsoft as an organization, it did manage to dilute its power and broaden the spread of wealth. When a company starts to dictate play in the way Microsoft did, the US Government starts to get a bit twitchy.

This is the issue which the likes of Google, Amazon and Apple are facing today. Such is the success of the business, through the creation of best-in-class products and strategic acquisitions to stutter the progress of competitors, the fortunes of the technology industry are incredibly concentrated. This is what Delrahim and his colleagues want to address.

Specifics are often lost in such conference speeches, but an interesting point raised by Delrahim focused on “network effects”. In short, an organization has such control over the supporting ecosystem competition is suffocated before it has any genuine chance to be competitive. Perhaps this is done through acquiring nascent competitors or manipulating the ecosystem.

Although there have been some hints of strategy from Delrahim, the specifics are still evading the industry. That said, it is becoming increasingly clear that the US Government wants to dilute the power and influence of big tech.

Huawei claims its US ban is unconstitutional

Huawei has continued its counter-assault against the US, suggesting the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contradicted the country’s constitution.

Signed into law in August 2018, the NDAA effectively banned Huawei and ZTE from any meaningful work in the US. The language was suitably nuanced to ensure this wasn’t a total ban, but the conditions made it difficult for Huawei to contribute any components, products or services to government or state-funded projects. Due to the intricacies of network investments, almost all major projects could be deemed state-funded by one means or another.

While Huawei has not taken this action from the US Government sitting quietly, this latest move challenges the legal foundations of the legislation, suggesting such actions from the White House and Congress are unconstitutional.

“As explained in the motion, the Constitution generally limits Congress to enacting laws and requires that application of those laws be left to the Executive and the courts,” said Glen Nager, the lead external counsel for Huawei and Partner at Jones Day.

“Congress may not selectively punish specific persons; Congress may not selectively deprive specific persons of property or liberty; and Congress may not itself exercise executive or judicial powers. But section 889 violates all of these constitutional rules.”

According to the filing, section 889 of the NDAA violates the Bill of Attainder, Due Process, and Vesting Clauses of the US Constitution. Huawei and its lawyers will argue the law should not be allowed to target specific companies and/or persons, while US politicians specifically targeted the firm during the legislative debate process, blatantly proclaiming an objective was to ‘banish’ Huawei from the country.

The Bill of Attainer clause suggests no bill can be passed into law which singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. As the US has passed this law without any formal legal proceedings against Huawei, it would appear there is a good case here.

Huawei’s lawyers also claim section 889 violates due process and the separation of powers, in that it is selective legislation targeting Huawei specifically. The filing also argues deprives Huawei of protected property and liberty interests without affording it constitutionally necessary due process. And finally, Congress has assumed the fact-finding and law application functions of the executive and the courts, ignoring the separation of power clause.

Should the courts be in agreement with Huawei’s position, it would appear politicians were in too much of a rush to make a move against China and its telco flagbearer. Another interesting consequence might be the burden of proof.

To date, little, if any, evidence has been offered to back up US propaganda against Huawei, though if the filing proves the NDAA is unconstitutional, the US Government might be forced to table any evidence it has. If the choice is between this law dwindling into non-existence or tabling evidence of collusion, the nuanced conflict between the US and China might be about to become much more substantiated.

UK MNOs set to claw back £200+ million in licence fees

A UK court has ruled in favour of the telcos in an on-going battle with regulator Ofcom over licence fees paid on spectrum assets between 2015 and 2017.

The legal battle concerns the process which was undertaken by Ofcom prior to increasing licence fees paid by each of the telcos for access to the airwaves. The decision to increase the licence fees was met by much criticism during the initial announcement, and you can see why.

The licence fees concern 900 MHz and 1800 MHz spectrum assets awarded to each of the telcos during a 2013 auction.

Telco Fee paid (post-2015) Fee paid (pre-2015) Difference
Vodafone £76,245,025.10 £21,865,536 £54,379,489.10
O2 £76,245,025.10 £21,865,536 £54,379,489.10
Three £44,390,398.53 £17,463,600 £26,926,798.53
EE/BT £139,823,997 £57,380,400 £82,443,597

While telcos are constantly complaining about regulation, as well as the amount paid to regulators around the world, the drastic difference in licence fees was too much to stomach here.

Following the decision to increase licence fees, EE was first to act, challenging the ruling in the courts in 2017. The other UK MNOs were quick to follow, with Ofcom being named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

“We welcome the court’s decision that finds in favour of the mobile operators,” said an O2 spokesperson. “We are however disappointed that Ofcom has been granted leave for appeal and we will strongly defend any future appeal brought by Ofcom.”

Ofcom will most likely appeal the decision.

The argument from the telcos is one which we have heard before. The more money which is demanded from Ofcom, the less which is available to invest in networks to ready the UK for the digital economy.

Following EE’s decision to challenge the changes to licence fees in 2015, a move which was supported by the other MNOs, Ofcom decided to revert back to the licence fees which were paid in the previous regime. There has been another consultation since, resulting in an increase to licence fees paid moving forward, though this case is focused on the period between 2015 and November 2017.

Aside from clawing back the payments made during this period, the parties have agreed simple interest be applied on whatever sum is due, calculated at 2% above the Bank of England base rate during the period.

For the MNOs, this news will be very much welcomed considering the financial burden they face ahead of the 5G era. With billions set to be spent rolling out the networks, a bit of financial relief will go a long way.

Supreme Court opens the legal floodgates on Apple

Apple is potentially on the verge of facing a tidal wave of lawsuits as the Supreme Court agrees the iLeader is allowed to be challenged on a potential abuse of power in the app economy.

The pivotal case the Supreme Court has been ruling on is Apple vs. Pepper. Robert Pepper and other plaintiffs, various iPhone owners, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple claiming the firm monopolised the app market through the App Store, with developer licence fees and the 30% commission ultimately driving the price up for consumers.

One the other side of the argument, Apple suggested iPhone owners were actually customers of the developers, while the developers were customers of Apple. This nuanced argument leans on legal precedent set in doctrine known as Illinois Brick where ‘indirect purchasers’ of a product don’t have the power to file antitrust cases. In distancing itself from the end-user in the app economy, Apple was hoping to protect itself.

In the first instance, the district court ruled in favour of Apple, dismissing the case, while the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision, ruling that consumers are purchasing from Apple not the developers. The fight was then escalated up to the Supreme Court, with the highest legal battleground in the US ruling 5-4 in favour of the iPhone owners.

What is worth noting is this is not a ruling which states Apple’s App Store is a monopoly, but a decision which allows users to file antitrust lawsuits against the iLeader. It’s a step towards another legal headache but is by no means a sign of guilt.

For Apple, this will come as an unwanted distraction as it attempts to scale it software and services business, in which the App Store is a key cog. The last few years have seen the Apple team attempt to create a more balanced business, with less of a reliance on the staggering hardware segment and reaping the rewards of the blossoming software world.

This decision from the Supreme Court might not assign guilt to Apple, but it certainly creates a monumental migraine. Such is the lawsuit culture in the US it won’t be long before miffed customers just on the bandwagon in pursuit of compensation.