Apple Inc. v. Pepper

2019 United States Supreme Court case

Apple Inc. v. Pepper

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 26, 2018
Decided May 13, 2019
Full case name| Apple Inc. v. Pepper, et al.
Docket no.| 17-204
Citations| 587 U.S. ___ (more)

139 S. Ct. 1514; 203 L. Ed. 2d 802

Argument| Oral argument
Case history
Prior| Motion to dismiss granted, In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013); reversed, In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig. (Pepper v. Apple Inc.), 846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2647 (2018).
Holding
Under Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners were direct purchasers who may sue Apple for alleged monopolization.
Court membership

Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
Majority| Kavanaugh, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Dissent| Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito
Laws applied
Clayton Act

Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to antitrust laws related to third-party resellers.[1] The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action antitrust lawsuit against Apple for practices it uses to regulate the App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the "Illinois Brick doctrine" established by the Supreme Court in 1977 via Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products. In its 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that since consumers purchased apps directly through Apple, that they have standing under Illinois Brick to seek antitrust charges against Apple.

## Background

[edit]

With the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, Apple Inc. also provided the App Store marketplace that allows third-party developers to provide mobile apps to iPhone users. Apps can be provided for free or at a price, with Apple taking a 30% cut of any revenue generated by the sale of digital products. Apple's approach has been criticized, as its terms and conditions for developers to use the App Store prevent them from selling their apps on other marketplaces, and Apple's consumer warranties strongly discourage the use of installing apps in other ways.[a] Some saw these conditions enabling Apple to effectively create a monopoly for app distribution, artificially forcing developers to raise costs of apps to cover Apple's fee. Apple has asserted that it has not violated antitrust laws as it considers itself a reseller of apps, its 30% fee a commission on the sale of those apps.[2]

### Case origins

[edit]

Several class-actions suits against Apple were filed shortly after the introduction of the iPhone; three of these were combined into a consolidated case In Re Apple & AT&TM Anti-Trust Litigation (No. C 07-05152 JW), filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. One of these focused on complaints towards Apple for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act in its alleged monopoly of the App Store marketplace, while a second set of complaints were aimed at both Apple and AT&T Mobility (AT&TM) for monopolizing the iPhone market via SIM card locking, forcing iPhone users to only use the AT&T Mobility cellular network. Apple sought to dismiss the case on various procedural grounds, including asserting that on consolidation, AT&T Mobility had been omitted as a defendant, and that as the class-action group, consumers using the iPhone, did not state they bought an iPhone or any App through the App Store, and thus did not have grounds to litigate under Article III of the Constitution. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), which stated that state laws cannot override arbitration allowances set by the Federal Arbitration Act, the District Court de-certified the case from its class-action status.[3]

### Renewed case

[edit]

A new class-action suit, In Re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation (11-cv-06714-YGR) was filed shortly after the decertification by the same plaintiffs in District Court; the new complaint, after several refinements, narrowly focused only on Apple as the sole defendant and the App Store complaints, and identified the plaintiffs as consumers of the iPhone and its apps, thus allowing for them to seek class-action. The District Court dismissed the suit with prejudice, upholding Apple's defense that the "Illinois Brick doctrine" from the Supreme Court case Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) applied, as only the developers of apps could be damaged by Apple's policies, and consumers did not have statutory standing to bring suit on the developers' behalf. The Court specifically noted that the 30% fee Apple collects is "a cost passed-on to consumers by independent software developers".[4]

### Appeal

[edit]

The class appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling, stating that the class had standing to sue under antitrust laws.[5] The decision raised the question of "whether Plaintiffs purchased their iPhone apps directly from the app developers, or directly from Apple". The ruling opened the question of whether, in terms of the App Store, Apple was a manufacturer or producer, in which case under Illinois Brick the class would not have standing, or whether Apple was a distributor, in which case the class would have standing.[6] This decision was split from the Eighth Circuit, where in a class-action suit against Ticketmaster[7] alleging antitrust complaints on venue tickets sales, the Eighth Circuit ruled that consumers were indirect purchasers under Illinois Brick due to the nature of ticket sales, and thus did not have standing.[8] Apple attempted to seek a rehearing en banc but were denied by May 2017.

## Hearing

[edit]

Apple filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in August 2017, posing the question "whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense". The US Government filed an amicus brief in support of Apple, arguing that the Ninth Circuit in reversing the District Court's ruling, went against the precedent established by the Supreme Court in Illinois Brick. The Court agreed to hear the case in June 2018.[9] Oral arguments were held on November 26.[10][11] Court observers stated that the four liberal Justices were joined by three of the conservative ones, Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, as to side with consumers on the question of standing.[12] Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that Apple's practice creates a closed loop that impacts the price paid by consumers.[13] Justice Neil Gorsuch considered that the prior decision from Illinois Brick may need to be overturned at the federal level, as at least 30 states have rejected the Illinois Brick doctrine.[13]

## Decision

[edit]

The Court issued its 5–4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision that consumers were "direct purchasers" of apps from Apple's store and had standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for antitrust practices.[14] Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers; that consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected the prices of the apps; and that while the structure for any damages that consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, that is not a factor to determine the standing of the suit. The Court stated that Apple's interpretation of Illinois Brick "did not make a lot of sense" and served only to "gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits."[15] Disagreeing with Apple's reasoning, the Court explained that if adopted, it would "directly contradict the longstanding goal of effective private enforcement and consumer protection in antitrust cases." Kavanaugh was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the class-action case to continue in lower courts but did not rule on any of the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case.[15]

### Dissenting opinion

[edit]

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, arguing that the majority's interpretation of Illinois Brick goes against previous principles and long-standing antitrust regulations.

## Notes

[edit]

1. ^ In contrast, while Google also collects fees on purchases of apps from Google Play store for Android devices, it neither holds a monopoly on phones, nor prevents apps to be sideloaded from other app stores or sources.[2]

## References

[edit]

1. ^ Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, 587 U.S. ___ (2019).
2. ^ a b Matsakis, Louise (June 18, 2018). "The Supreme Court Will Decide If Apple's App Store Is a Monopoly". Wired. Retrieved June 19, 2018.
3. ^ In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.,  No. 11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013).
4. ^ In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.,  No. 11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013).
5. ^ In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig. (Pepper v. Apple Inc.), 846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017).
6. ^ Condon, Stephanie (January 12, 2017). "US appeals court reopens lawsuit against Apple for alleged App Store monopoly". ZDNet. Retrieved June 18, 2018.
7. ^ Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp., 140 F.3d 1166 (8th Cir. 1998).
8. ^ Frankel, Alison (January 13, 2017). "9th Circuit Apple antitrust ruling splits with 8th, is boon to consumers". Reuters. Retrieved June 18, 2018.
9. ^ Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 138 S. Ct. 2647 (2018).
10. ^ Stohr, Greg (June 18, 2018). "Apple Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review on iPhone App Fee Suit". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved June 18, 2018.
11. ^ Howe, Amy (October 9, 2018). "Court releases December Calendar". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved October 9, 2018.
12. ^ Wolf, Richard (November 26, 2018). "Supreme Court skeptical of Apple's monopoly on app purchases through its App Store". USA Today. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
13. ^ a b Wilson, Pete (November 26, 2018). "Supreme Court may let consumers sue Apple over App Store monopoly claims". NBC News. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
14. ^ Liptak, Adam (May 13, 2019). "Supreme Court Allows Antitrust Suit Against Apple to Proceed". The New York Times. Retrieved May 14, 2019.
15. ^ a b Goldman, David; Fung, Brian (May 13, 2019). "IPhone owners can sue Apple for monopolizing App Store, Supreme Court rules". CNN. Retrieved May 13, 2019.

## External links

[edit]

* Text of Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, 587 U.S. ___ (2019) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)

* v
* t
* e

United States antitrust law

* History
* Interstate Commerce Commission (1887–1996)
* Bureau of Corporations (1903–1915)
* Pujo Committee (1912–1913)
* Federal Trade Commission (1914–)
* U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Division (1919–)
* U.S. Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee
* U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee

Statutes and
regulations|

* Interstate Commerce Act of 1887
* Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)
* Elkins Act (1903)
* Expediting Act (1903)
* Publicity In Taking Evidence Act (1913)
* Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
* Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914
* Webb–Pomerene Act (1918)
* Willis Graham Act (1921)
* Capper–Volstead Act (1922)
* Robinson–Patman Act (1936)
* Wheeler–Lea Act (1938)
* McCarran–Ferguson Act (1945)
* Celler–Kefauver Act (1950)
* Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961
* Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970
* Tunney Act (1974)
* Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (1976)
* National Cooperative Research and Production Act (1993)
* Executive Order 14036 (2021)

Supreme Court
case law|

| Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 1 case law|

* United States v. American Tobacco Co. (1911)
* United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940)
* International Salt Co. v. United States (1947)
* United States v. Line Material Co. (1948)
* Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1951)
* United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc. (1952)
* United States v. Loew's Inc. (1962)
* United States v. Wise (1962)
* Silver v. New York Stock Exchange (1963)
* United States v. Singer Mfg. Co. (1963)
* Albrecht v. Herald Co. (1968)
* United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)
* Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
* Continental Television, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (1977)
* Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977)
* Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society (1982)
* Rice v. Norman Williams Co. (1982)
* Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (1984)
* Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde (1984)
* NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984)
* Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. (1986)
* State Oil Co. v. Khan (1997)
* Texaco Inc. v. Dagher (2006)
* Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007)
* Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007)
* American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010)
* Ohio v. American Express Co. (2018)
* National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston (2021)

|

Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 2 case law|

* Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911)
* Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951)
* Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
* Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States (1973)
* Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (1985)
* Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan (1993)
* Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP (2004)
* Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. (2007)
* Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.  (2009)

Other Sherman
Antitrust Act cases|

* United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)
* United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association (1897)
* Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States (1899)
* Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1904)
* Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)
* Loewe v. Lawlor (1908)
* Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911)
* United States v. Terminal Railroad Association (1912)
* Chicago Board of Trade v. United States (1918)
* United States v. Colgate & Co. (1919)
* Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922)
* United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)
* Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States (1939)
* Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States (1940)
* Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941)
* United States v. Masonite Corp. (1942)
* United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)
* Parker v. Brown (1943)
* United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (1944)
* Associated Press v. United States (1945)
* Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States (1945)
* Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. (1946)
* United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (1948)
* United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948–1950)
* Besser Manufacturing Co. v. United States (1951)
* Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States (1953)
* Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. (1953)
* United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc. (1955)
* Radovich v. National Football League (1957)
* Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. (1959)
* United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. (1960)
* Haywood v. National Basketball Association (1971)
* Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
* Flood v. Kuhn (1972)
* Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS Inc. (1979)
* California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. (1980)
* American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp. (1982)
* Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1985)
* Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. (1992)
* Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California (1993)
* Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)
* North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC (2015)

Interstate Commerce Act
case law|

* United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association (1897)
* United States v. ICC (1970)

Clayton Antitrust Act
case law|

* Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering (1921)
* Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941)
* Mercoid cases (1944)
* Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States (1945)
* Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. (1946)
* United States v. National City Lines Inc. (1948)
* Standard Oil Co. v. United States (1949)
* Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.  (1961)
* Silver v. New York Stock Exchange (1963)
* United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963)
* United States v. Continental Can Co. (1964)
* FTC v. Consolidated Foods Corp. (1965)
* Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)
* FTC v. Dean Foods Co. (1966)
* Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)
* Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California (1972)
* Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977)
* Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India (1978)
* Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993)
* Apple Inc. v. Pepper (2019)

FTC Act case law|

* Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC (1941)
* FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co. (1953)
* FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co. (1972)
* FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)

Robinson–Patman Act
case law|

* Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. (1986)
* Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993)

Other cases|

* Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)
* Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (1928)
* Watson v. Buck (1941)
* National Broadcasting Co. v. United States (1943)
* Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co. (1980)
* District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983)
* Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing (2007)
* Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (2013)
* Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals (2018)

Other federal
case law|

* United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co. (1915)
* United States v. Consolidated Music Corporation (1922)
* United States v. Vehicular Parking Ltd. (1944)
* United States v. Alcoa (1945)
* Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc. (1952)
* United States v. Morgan (1953)
* United States v. Krasnov (1956)
* United States v. Huck Mfg. Co. (1965)
* Robertson v. National Basketball Ass'n (1977)
* SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1978)
* United States v. Westinghouse Electric Co. (1981)
* United States v. AT&T (1982)
* Mid-South Grizzlies v. National Football League (1983)
* United States v. Syufy Enterprises (1990)
* Wilk v. American Medical Association (1990)
* A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. (2001)
* United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)
* Fraser v. Major League Soccer (2002)
* LePage's, Inc. v. 3M (2003)
* Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (2005)
* United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc. (2005)
* Tritent International Corp. v. Kentucky (2006)
* Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. (2006)
* De Beers antitrust litigation (2008)
* Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP (2009)
* Princo Corp. v. ITC (2010)
* United States v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. (2011)
* United States v. Apple Inc. (2013)
* O'Bannon v. NCAA (2015)
* United States v. AT&T (2015)
* FTC v. Qualcomm (2020)
* New York v. Deutsche Telekom (2020)
* Epic Games v. Apple (2021)
* Burnett v. National Association of Realtors (2023)
* Epic Games v. Google (2023)
* FTC v. Microsoft (2023)
* United States v. Google LLC (2024)
* United States v. Google LLC (2025)

Ongoing
litigation ‡|

* FTC v. Meta (2020)
* FTC v. Amazon (2023)
* United States v. Apple Inc. (2024)
* United States v. Live Nation Entertainment (2024)

Related topics|

* Block booking
* Breakup of the Bell System
* Bulk-sale restriction
* Bundling
* Civil investigative demand
* Consent decree
* Consumer welfare standard
* Dividing territories
* Essential facilities doctrine
* Exclusive dealing
* Hub-and-spoke conspiracy
* Kingsbury Commitment
* Merger guidelines
* Modification of Final Judgment
* New Brandeis movement
* Noerr–Pennington doctrine
* Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons v. California Medical Ass'n (1964)
* Parker immunity doctrine
* Patent misuse
* Post-sale restraint
* Raising rivals' costs
* Relevant market
* Report on Chain Broadcasting
* Reverse payment patent settlement
* Rule of reason
* Second request
* Successors of Standard Oil
* Unfairness doctrine
* Unilateral policy

‡ date of filing

* v
* t
* e

Apple Inc.

* History
* Outline
* Timeline of products
* Environment
* Marketing
* Supply chain
* Trade unions

Products|

| Hardware|

| Mac|

* iMac
* Pro
* MacBook
* Air
* Pro
* Mini
* Studio
* Pro
* Mac models
* grouped by CPU type

|

iPod|

* Classic
* Mini
* Nano
* Shuffle
* Touch

iPhone|

* Hardware
* History
* iPhone models

iPad|

* Mini
* Air
* Pro
* Accessories
* iPad models

AirPods|

* Pro
* Max

Other|

* Apple SIM
* AirTag
* Beats
* Pill
* HomePod
* Mini
* Silicon
* TV
* Vision Pro
* Watch

Software|

| Operating
systems|

* iOS / iPadOS
* iOS history
* iPadOS history
* Apps
* macOS
* History
* Server
* Apps
* tvOS
* watchOS
* bridgeOS
* Darwin
* Classic Mac OS
* visionOS

|

* CarPlay
* Classroom
* HomeKit
* Core Foundation
* Developer Tools
* FileMaker
* Final Cut Pro
* X
* Compressor
* Motion
* Logic Pro
* MainStage
* iLife
* GarageBand
* iMovie
* iPhoto
* iTunes
* iWork
* Keynote
* Numbers
* Pages
* Mail
* QuickTime
* Safari
* SceneKit
* Shazam
* Siri
* Swift
* Xcode

Services|

| Financial|

* Card
* Pay
* Wallet

|

Media|

* Arcade
* Books
* Music
* 1
* Beats Music
* Up Next
* Festival
* iTunes Radio
* App
* News
* Newsstand
* Podcasts
* TV
* +
* originals
* MLS Season Pass

Communication|

* FaceTime
* Walkie-Talkie
* iMessage
* iChat
* App
* Invites
* Game Center

Retail and
digital sales|

* App Store
* macOS
* iTunes Store
* Connect
* Store
* Fifth Avenue
* Michigan Avenue

Support|

* AppleCare+
* AASP
* Certifications
* Genius Bar
* ProCare
* One to One

Other|

* Apple Account (formerly Apple ID)
* Sign in with Apple
* One
* Developer
* iAd
* TestFlight
* WWDC
* iCloud
* MobileMe
* Find My
* Fitness
* Photos
* Maps
* Flyover
* Look Around

Companies|

| Subsidiaries|

* Anobit
* Apple IMC
* Apple Studios
* Beats
* Beddit
* Braeburn Capital
* Claris

|

Acquisitions|

* Anobit
* AuthenTec
* Beats
* Beddit
* BIS Records
* Cue
* EditGrid
* Emagic
* FingerWorks
* Intrinsity
* InVisage Technologies
* The Keyboard Company
* Lala
* Metaio
* NeXT
* Nothing Real
* P.A. Semi
* Power Computing
* PrimeSense
* Shazam Entertainment Limited
* Siri
* Texture
* Topsy

Partnerships|

* AIM alliance
* Kaleida Labs
* Taligent
* Akamai
* Arm
* DiDi
* Digital Ocean
* iFund
* Imagination
* Rockstar Consortium

Related|

* Advertising
* "1984"
* "Think different"
* "Get a Mac"
* iPod
* Product Red
* Ecosystem
* Events
* Criticism
* Right to repair
* Tax
* Headquarters
* Campus
* Park
* University
* Design
* IDg
* Typography
* Book
* History
* Codenames
* Apple FileWare
* Community
* AppleMasters
* Litigation
* 2024 U.S. antitrust case
* App Store antitrust case
* Non-recruiting agreements
* Price-fixing ebooks
* FBI encryption dispute
* Epic Games
* iOS app approvals
* Unions
* #AppleToo
* Depictions of Steve Jobs
* Linux
* Asahi Linux
* iPodLinux
* Car project

People|

| Executives|

| Current|

* Tim Cook (CEO)
* Jeff Williams (COO)
* Kevan Parekh (CFO)
* Katherine Adams (General Counsel)
* Eddy Cue
* Craig Federighi
* Isabel Ge Mahe
* John Giannandrea
* Lisa Jackson
* Greg Joswiak
* Sabih Khan
* Luca Maestri
* Deirdre O'Brien
* Dan Riccio
* Phil Schiller
* Johny Srouji
* John Ternus

|

Former|

* Michael Scott (CEO)
* Mike Markkula (CEO)
* John Sculley (CEO)
* Michael Spindler (CEO)
* Gil Amelio (CEO)
* Steve Jobs (CEO)
* Jony Ive (CDO)
* Angela Ahrendts
* Fred D. Anderson
* John Browett
* Guerrino De Luca
* Paul Deneve
* Al Eisenstat
* Tony Fadell
* Scott Forstall
* Ellen Hancock
* Nancy R. Heinen
* Ron Johnson
* David Nagel
* Peter Oppenheimer
* Mark Papermaster
* Jon Rubinstein
* Bertrand Serlet
* Bruce Sewell
* Sina Tamaddon
* Avie Tevanian
* Steve Wozniak

Board of
directors|

| Current|

* Arthur D. Levinson (Chairman)
* Tim Cook (CEO)
* Wanda Austin
* Alex Gorsky
* Andrea Jung
* Monica C. Lozano
* Ronald D. Sugar
* Susan L. Wagner

|

Former|

* Mike Markkula (Chairman)
* John Sculley (Chairman)
* Steve Jobs (Chairman)
* Gil Amelio
* Fred D. Anderson
* James A. Bell
* Bill Campbell
* Mickey Drexler
* Al Eisenstat
* Larry Ellison
* Al Gore
* Robert A. Iger
* Delano Lewis
* Arthur Rock
* Eric Schmidt
* Michael Scott
* Michael Spindler
* Edgar S. Woolard Jr.
* Jerry York

Founders|

* Steve Jobs
* Steve Wozniak
* Ronald Wayne

* Italics indicate discontinued products, services, or defunct companies.
* Category

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template