Sue Apple for Apple Music: Keys and historical precedents

sue Apple over Apple Music

In recent days, a lot of information has come out about Apple's historic lawsuit over Apple Music, estimating the probable fine at something greater than 500 million euros for dominant market abuse. And being a large company in the technology market can entail certain problems and the fine line between offering great products and falling into monopolistic practices that undermine the market is very fine.

So if you are curious to know more information about this historic lawsuit, what legal bases it has and the jurisprudence that may have been generated in similar cases to rule that Apple is breaking the rules, don't miss this post.

The lawsuit against Apple for Apple Music: how it occurs

Apple Music

In the year 2019, Apple received a lawsuit filed by Spotify to limit competition, specifically alluding to “intentionally limiting options and stifling innovation” in its app store, because it always prioritizes Apple Music over any alternative.

Spotify alleges that Apple abuses its dominant position by restricting competition in the application market and music services, including practices such as impose 30% commissions on Spotify subscriptions that are marketed on Apple equipment and limit the ability of competitors to offer alternatives to Apple Music.

As a basis for this, the European Commission preliminarily determined that Apple distorts competition with other music services, with a potential fine estimated at nothing more and nothing less than 500 million euros, setting a precedent in the market.

Is there a clear case of Spotify vs Apple?

spotify timer

If we focus on this specific case, We could consider that Apple Music could violate the antitrust law of the European Union if Apple is found to be abusing its dominant position in the music streaming market to impede competition or unfairly restrict consumer choice.

Specifically, we would have three accusations that in our opinion could succeed:

Interoperability restrictions

One of the accusations that could be made against Apple could be the limiting Apple Music interoperability with third-party devices or services, which would make it difficult for Apple Music users to switch to other music streaming services or use competing devices.

Currently Apple Music lists are not exportable, so if you switch to a third-party service you have to start from scratch, this being an exit barrier for users of the App.

Unfair contract conditions

That 30% commission that Apple charges Spotify for its subscriptions when using its payment gateway as the only alternative could be considered an unfair contractual condition to developers who wish to distribute their applications through the App Store.

Use of user data

Apple might use your access to user data from your devices and services to gain an unfair competitive advantage on other music streaming service providers, for example, using the data to target Apple Music promotion more effectively or to develop features that mimic competitors.

Apple has it complicated: the case of Microsoft and Internet Explorer

netscape vs ie lawsuit

One of the principles that generate the law is jurisprudence: that is, legal rulings that have been applied in similar situations and unfortunately for Apple, in collective memory there is a case that is very similar to the lawsuit against Apple for Apple Music: the case of Internet Explorer with Microsoft.

The antitrust policy against Microsoft in the Internet Explorer case is a prominent example of the application of antitrust legislation in the technology sector, which affected the company at both a legal level in the US and the EU.

initial investigation

In the 1990s, Microsoft was in a dominant position in the personal computer operating system market with its Windows operating system and was not recognized as a “nice little lamb in the market”: If there was a strong competitor at some point, they would go after them until they knocked them down..

But the trigger for this demand is the launch of Internet Explorer, its own web browser, which was closely implemented with Windows and although it was not the best option on the market, it was the browser that most people used for the convenience of having it at hand. hand. This practice attracted the attention of the different antitrust commissions in the West.

Allegations of anti-competitive practices

Microsoft's competitors, such as Netscape, accused Microsoft of taking advantage of its dominant position in the operating system market to unfairly favor Internet Explorer over other web browsers, taking advantage of the Sherman Act of 1980, which prohibits restraints of trade and monopolies.

One of the main accusations was that Microsoft was using its influence to preinstall Internet Explorer on Windows and make it difficult to install and use competing browsers. something very similar to what is happening in the lawsuit against Apple for Apple Music.

Legal actions: US and EU get to work

Both the United States Department of Justice and the European Commission launched investigations into Microsoft's business practices regarding Internet Explorer.

In 1998, the US Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, alleging that the company had violated antitrust law by impeding competition in the web browser market.

After a long trial, A US federal court found Microsoft guilty of violating antitrust law by abusing its dominant position in the operating system market to hinder competition in the web browser market.

The court ordered the division of Microsoft into two separate companies: one that would produce the Windows operating system and another that would handle other activities, including Internet Explorer.

Appeal and resolution

Microsoft appealed the decision and the case went through several years of litigation, with many changes of judges and prosecutors. Finally, in 2001, the United States government and Microsoft reached an agreement, which was ratified in another agreement with the European Union in 2007.

The Redmond company, in both agreements, agreed to change some of its business practices, such as including a pop-up that indicated that other browsers existed and gave links to download them, but not to the division of the company into two different areas.

In addition, Microsoft was subject to financial sanctions and monitoring by an external monitor to ensure compliance with antitrust regulations and ended up being the end of Steve Ballmer as CEO of the company, who was replaced by Satya Nadella.

Can this fine generate jurisprudence in the Apple Music case?

jurisprudence against apple

In the case of Apple and its Music service, if the precedent set in the Microsoft case were applied, similar concerns could be raised. in relation to Apple's dominant position in the music streaming market.

This could include examining whether Apple is abusing its position by actively not allowing alternatives to your own music platform, such as Spotify or Amazon Music, or if it is hindering competition in the market of streaming music services in the case of users of Apple equipment.

However, it is important to highlight that there are significant differences between the two cases. For example, while Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer directly into its Windows operating system, Apple controls streaming music distribution through Apple Music, which is a separate platform and not essential for the basic operation of the device.

Additionally, Apple argues that Apple Music policies provide a safe and trustworthy environment for users, and that the store's policies, including those related to payment methods, are designed to protect the security and privacy of users.

Only time will tell how this antitrust lawsuit ends and if the Apple Music lawsuit will succeed, generating a tsunami in the way the company works.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: Actualidad Blog
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.