• Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Home
  • Daily Diary
  • Asset Class
    • U.S. Equity
    • Fixed Income
    • Global Equity
    • Commodities
    • Currencies
  • Sector
    • Basic Materials
    • Consumer Discretionary
    • Consumer Staples
    • Energy
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Industrials
    • Real Estate
    • Technology
    • Telecom Services
    • Transportation
    • Utilities
  • Latest
    • Articles
    • Video
    • Columnist Conversations
    • Best Ideas
    • Stock of the Day
  • Street Notes
  • Authors
    • Bruce Kamich
    • Doug Kass
    • Jim "Rev Shark" DePorre
    • Helene Meisler
    • Jonathan Heller
    • - See All -
  • Options
  • RMPIA
  • Switch Product
    • Action Alerts PLUS
    • Quant Ratings
    • Real Money
    • Real Money Pro
    • Retirement
    • Stocks Under $10
    • TheStreet
    • Top Stocks
    • TheStreet Smarts
  1. Home
  2. / Investing
  3. / Stocks

Apple Shareholders Have Larger Legal Issues Than Qualcomm to Consider

Apple may have larger legal fish to fry than the much-publicized Qualcomm quarrel.
By KEVIN CURRAN Dec 10, 2018 | 02:37 PM EST
Stocks quotes in this article: QCOM, AAPL

Antitrust action is being considered against Apple (AAPL) for its alleged monopolistic practices in its App Store, raising more red flags for shareholders.

Apple's litigation issues on home soil are remaining quieter than concern over Qualcomm (QCOM) on Monday, as a myriad of bad news from Beijing pours in for the Tim Cook-led company. As the company draws about 18% of its revenues from mainland China, the apprehension is justified, and shares have reacted accordingly.

Yet the implications of the antitrust action considered under Apple v. Pepper, which heard opening oral arguments just two weeks ago, poses a larger problem for the company that continues to move away from being simply a hardware company.

The litigation, which has been progressing slowly over recent years, threatens to create competition and constrain services revenue that recently reached $10 billion in the company's fiscal fourth quarter.

The case began with a filing by Robert Pepper and three other iPhone users  in 2011. The users were disgruntled about Apple's terms of service and essential monopoly on apps, which they contended had driven app prices higher.

The case has gone back and forth through the courts with Apple winning a decision before that was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Following that decision, an appeal by Apple has left the case at the feet of the highest court in the land.

Services Size-Down

Apple's services segment, which includes App Store, Apple Pay, iCloud, and Apple Music, has become a serious thesis for investment in Apple amidst its challenges, especially as revenue has reached record levels.

The company has also set even higher targets for 2020, creating a bullish feeling around Apple's non-hardware offerings in recent quarters.

"This is exactly why I am in the name. Subscription services," long-time NYSE trader and Real Money contributor Stephen Guilfoyle wrote in his column on Monday morning, summing up the sentiment.

Guilfoyle echoed the sentiment of Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty, who proposed that services will act as a mooring through the shaky waves of iPhone sales.

While the company does not break out the revenue of each component of the segment, the 30% cut the phone giant takes on all first year apps and the 15% cut on sales of apps with more than one year under their belt, the revenue available is assumed to be a remarkable one. 

As such, the App Store plays a central role in Apple's revenue acceleration amid deceleration in phone sales as it can act as a way to keep phones up to date amid longer user cycles for the actual phone hardware. 

What the current Apple v. Pepper case being heard in front of the Supreme Court at present would mean is a breakdown of the company's stranglehold on the app market and an almost certain deterioration of the company's exorbitant app distribution pricing model.

Where We Stand Before the SCOTUS

Apple, not keen to see its App Store knocked out of its dominant position, has chased the case up to the Supreme Court on the argument that only app developers are in a direct relationship with Apple, not iPhone users.

The case draws from the Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois case which was ruled on in 1977 which established that indirect purchasers of goods or services along a supply chain cannot litigate for antitrust actions committed by the manufacturer or service provider. If accepted, the plaintiffs would have no case.

Unfortunately for shareholders, recently published transcripts from the Supreme Court do not paint a promising picture for Apple.

Justice Elena Kagan explained her reasoning during opening arguments on November 26 as follows: 

"When you're looking at the relationship between the consumer and Apple, that there is only one step. I mean, I pick up my iPhone. I go to Apple's App Store. I pay Apple directly with the credit card information that I've supplied to Apple. From -- from my perspective, I've just engaged in a one-step transaction with Apple. And when I come in and say Apple is a monopolist and Apple is charging a super-competitive price by -- by extracting a commission that it can only extract because of its market power, I mean, there's my one step."

Judge Stephen Breyer joked that given his octogenarian status, there were many words in the filing that he did not quite understand. He simplified the problem through analogy:

"If Joe Smith buys from Bill, who bought from the monopolist, then we have something indirect. But, if Joe Smith bought from the monopolist, it is direct. That's a simple theory."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also appeared firmly in the corner of app consumers, chiding Apple's arguments:

"More generally about Illinois Brick...That was a case of a vertical monopoly: A concrete block person, manufacturer, monopolizes the next intermediate market who then sells to a customer... This is not quite like that. This is dramatically different. This is a closed loop."

Perhaps only Justice Neil Gorsuch offered any support to the Illinois Brick contention, though he even questioned the very precedent of the decision itself, making his endorsement of the argument an unstable one.

So, while much of the market is eyeing China and its courts' impositions on the company, there may be bigger legal problems that lie in wait.

Get an email alert each time I write an article for Real Money. Click the "+Follow" next to my byline to this article.

Employees of TheStreet are restricted from trading individual securities.

Apple is a holding in Jim Cramer's Action Alerts PLUS member club. Want to be alerted before Jim Cramer buys or sells AAPL? Learn more now.

TAGS: Litigation | Investing | Stocks | Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment | Technology | Technology Hardware & Equipment | Telecommunications | China | United States | Telecom Services | Stock of the Day

More from Stocks

Here's Why Traders Are Cautious Despite Slowing Inflation

James "Rev Shark" DePorre
Sep 29, 2023 4:25 PM EDT

As we say to goodbye to a rough September, let's look what what's weighing on investor sentiment now.

Okta: Does a New Technical Strategy Make Sense?

Bruce Kamich
Sep 29, 2023 12:50 PM EDT

The identity security management firm gets a quantitative upgrade.

Is Zscaler Giving Off a Buy Signal?

Bruce Kamich
Sep 29, 2023 11:44 AM EDT

Here's when investors may want to add.

3 Small Biotech Stocks That Could Be Stars

Bret Jensen
Sep 29, 2023 10:00 AM EDT

Not all the news from the small biotech space is bad. One company in particular already has been gaining the attention of investors.

Can Carnival Sustain a Move to the Upside?

Bruce Kamich
Sep 29, 2023 9:02 AM EDT

Let's check the charts and indicators.

Real Money's message boards are strictly for the open exchange of investment ideas among registered users. Any discussions or subjects off that topic or that do not promote this goal will be removed at the discretion of the site's moderators. Abusive, insensitive or threatening comments will not be tolerated and will be deleted. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions, please contact us here.

Email

CANCEL
SUBMIT

Email sent

Thank you, your email to has been sent successfully.

DONE

Oops!

We're sorry. There was a problem trying to send your email to .
Please contact customer support to let us know.

DONE

Please Join or Log In to Email Our Authors.

Email Real Money's Wall Street Pros for further analysis and insight

Already a Subscriber? Login

Columnist Conversation

  • 12:13 PM EDT BRUCE KAMICH

    8 Trading Rules from T. T. Hoyne

    You just read the header for this missive and prob...
  • 08:42 AM EDT JAMES "REV SHARK" DEPORRE

    This Weekend on Real Money

    How Elite Traders Make Big Profits
  • 02:58 PM EDT BRUCE KAMICH

    Classic Trading Rules From Bernard Baruch

    Bernard Baruch listed the rules (below) in his aut...
  • See More

COLUMNIST TWEETS

  • A Twitter List by realmoney
About Privacy Terms of Use

© 1996-2023 TheStreet, Inc., 225 Liberty Street, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10281

Need Help? Contact Customer Service

Except as otherwise indicated, quotes are delayed. Quotes delayed at least 20 minutes for all exchanges. Market Data & Company fundamental data provided by FactSet. Earnings and ratings provided by Zacks. Mutual fund data provided by Valueline. ETF data provided by Lipper. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions Group.

TheStreet Ratings updates stock ratings daily. However, if no rating change occurs, the data on this page does not update. The data does update after 90 days if no rating change occurs within that time period.

FactSet calculates the Market Cap for the basic symbol to include common shares only. Year-to-date mutual fund returns are calculated on a monthly basis by Value Line and posted mid-month.

Compare Brokers

Please Join or Log In to manage and receive alerts.

Follow Real Money's Wall Street Pros to receive real-time investing alerts

Already a Subscriber? Login