*

Judge reverses February 2024 class certification

*

Apple ( AAPL ) monopolization said to result in higher prices

*

Disappointed plaintiffs to review next steps, lawyer says

(Adds additional comment from Apple ( AAPL ), in paragraph 8)

By Jonathan Stempel

Oct 27 (Reuters) - A federal judge decertified on Monday

a class action by tens of millions of Apple ( AAPL ) customers

who accused the company of monopolizing the market for iPhone

apps by banning purchases outside its App Store, leading to

higher prices.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland,

California, reversed her February 2024 class certification

ruling, which let Apple ( AAPL ) account holders who spent $10 or more on

app or in-app content within the last 17 years sue as a group.

In decertifying the class, Rogers said the plaintiffs failed

to provide a model "capable of reliably showing classwide injury

and damages in one stroke" by matching Apple ( AAPL ) accounts to

consumers, while limiting the number of "unharmed" consumers in

the class.

She ruled after an expert hired by Cupertino,

California-based Apple ( AAPL ) found "alarming" errors in the

plaintiffs' model.

These included one that named plaintiff Robert Pepper and

supposed claimant "Rob Pepper" were different people despite

sharing home addresses and credit card information.

They also included the lumping together of more than 40,000

payment records for people whose first name was "Kim," but who

otherwise had nothing in common.

DISAPPOINTED PLAINTIFFS TO REVIEW NEXT STEPS

Mark Rifkin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email

"we are of course disappointed" with the decision, and are

reviewing their next legal steps to protect consumers "harmed by

Apple's ( AAPL ) unlawful App Store monopoly."

Apple ( AAPL ) said it was pleased with the decision, and that it

invests "significantly" to make the App Store "a safe and

trusted place for users to discover apps and a great business

opportunity for developers."

Class actions can result in greater recoveries at less cost

than if plaintiffs sue individually.

The plaintiffs said Apple's ( AAPL ) monopoly included charging

excessive commissions to app developers, which would be passed

on to consumers through higher prices to download apps or make

in-app purchases.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs had estimated that classwide

damages could total billions of dollars.

The lawsuit began in December 2011, and the class had

covered users of iOS-powered devices since July 10, 2008.

The case is In re Apple ( AAPL ) iPhone Antitrust Litigation, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-06714.