Letter of the law - I think - which says that the “customer” has standing.
Apple doesn’t charge the consumers 30% - it charges the developers and they’re the “customers” in this case. Apple’s argument is that the developers set their own price and don’t have to pass on the cost. (Eg if they charge less, Apple gets less) so the law says the actual consumers don’t have standing to sue.
Kavanaugh interpreted the law... liberally...
What’s scratching my head is why Roberts sided with the conservative viewpoint - especially after saying Obamacare was “fine” coz he don’t make decisions politically...
Seems like simple price-fixing isn’t the question when Apple enforces monopoly status. Apple gets to charge an exorbitant percentage, which 30% is in this case, because of that status.
I think consumer tech companies have been forced to not, for example, cancel warranties if consumers go elsewhere for service on their products, and the likes of Microsoft have been slapped back from using tech to force the vertical integration of their additional services and products on top of their underlying technology.
I appreciate your description, but don’t know that I’ve seen enough yet to know that the left is over-interpreting. I hope to have the time to take a peek myself this week.