Anthony v Apple Inc

In the Federal Court of Australia, a class action was brought by Anthony on behalf of developers and users against Apple Inc, alleging restrictive conduct in the distribution and payment services markets. The plaintiffs argued that Apple's imposition of restrictive contractual conditions, including a 30% commission on in-app purchases, substantially lessened competition and contravened section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The case involved a representative proceeding against Apple, with similar claims brought against Google by the same developers and users. The group members sought compensation for the overcharge of commission by both Apple and Google, as well as consequential relief.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Apple's and Google's conduct amounted to restrictive practices under section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, and whether there was an overcharge of commission by the companies. The court also considered whether Apple and Google had engaged in unconscionable conduct under section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law. The court needed to determine the counterfactual commission rates that would have applied in the absence of the alleged contravening conduct, and whether the commissions actually paid were a result of the contraventions found.

The court concluded that the commissions payable by developers would likely have been materially less absent the contravening conduct of Apple and Google. However, the court could not quantify the difference between the commissions actually paid and the counterfactual commissions at that stage. The court determined that it needed further submissions from counsel to focus on the actual contraventions found against Google and to resolve the counterfactual commission and overcharge questions. The further hearing of the proceeding was stood over to a later date to allow for these submissions.

The court made several orders, including that disclosure and publication of the written reasons and their content would be limited to the parties' external legal advisors in the proceeding and in related proceedings. The court also reserved costs and granted liberty to apply.