14 F. Supp. 3d 525
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Apple moves to dismiss States’ damages claims or compel class certification in the damages action arising from Apple’s antitrust violations.
- Plaintiffs include 31 States, DC, Puerto Rico, DOJ, and a consumer class; publishers settled liability with DOJ/States; trial on liability held in 2013 with an injunction in 2013.
- Court found Apple violated the Sherman Act and entered a permanent injunction; damages litigation against Apple and publishers followed with a July 2014 damages trial slated.
- States allege injury to state economies and citizens from reduced price competition in e-books; damages sought treble under 15 U.S.C. § 15c with notice/opt-out provisions.
- Apple filed November 15, 2018 motion asserting lack of standing and seeking Rule 23 class-certification requirements; motion fully briefed by December 13, 2018.
- Court addresses Article III standing, prudential standing, and class-certification posture with respect to Section 15c parens patriae actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether States have Article III standing to seek damages | States have injury to economies; Section 15c grants parens patriae damages | States lack Article III standing to seek damages | States have Article III standing. |
| Whether prudential standing limits apply to parens patriae damages | Section 15c overrides prudential limits; Congress authorized action | Prudential standing bars States from damages claim | Prudential standing does not bar; Section 15c abrogates prudential limits. |
| Whether Rule 23 class-certification requirements apply to Section 15c actions | Court should not graft Rule 23 onto Section 15c; due process protected by statute | States must meet Rule 23 to pursue damages | Rule 23 does not apply to Section 15c actions; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (Congress may define injuries for procedural rights in standing inquiry)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (irreducible constitutional minimum of standing; injury, causation, redressability)
- Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 582 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2009) (prudential standing limitations may be overcome by Congress in §15c context)
- Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Pennsylvania R.R., 96 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996) (parens patriae standing and injury to quasi-sovereign interests under prudential framework)
- Massachusetts, ex rel.? (cited for parens patriae context), 324 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1945) (injury to State economies and citizens in antitrust context)