Case Citation
Legal Case Name

United States v. Apple, Inc. Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit2015Docket #2669524
791 F.3d 290 43 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1941 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11271 Antitrust Law Contracts

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Apple orchestrated a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy among e-book publishers to eliminate retail price competition from Amazon. The Second Circuit affirmed that this “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy was a per se violation of the Sherman Act, rejecting Apple’s pro-competitive justifications.

Legal Significance: The case affirms that a vertical actor (the “hub”) can be held liable under the per se rule for organizing a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy among its suppliers (the “spokes”), even if its own agreements are vertical and it claims pro-competitive motives like facilitating market entry.

United States v. Apple, Inc. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

In 2009, Amazon dominated the e-book market, selling bestsellers for $9.99, often below its wholesale cost. Major publishers feared this pricing model threatened their hardcover sales and long-term pricing power. Apple, preparing to launch the iPad and its iBookstore, sought to enter the market without matching Amazon’s loss-leading prices. Apple negotiated with five of the six largest publishers, proposing an “agency model” where publishers set retail prices and Apple took a 30% commission. A key term was a Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) clause, which required publishers to match the lowest retail price offered by any competitor. This MFN created a powerful economic incentive for publishers to collectively force Amazon and other retailers to adopt the agency model, thereby eliminating retail price competition and raising e-book prices market-wide. The district court found that Apple actively facilitated communication and coordination among the publishers to ensure they acted in unison against Amazon. Following the agreements, the publishers successfully moved Amazon to an agency model, and consumer e-book prices for their titles rose significantly.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did a company acting as a vertical “hub” commit a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by knowingly organizing a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy among its suppliers (the “spokes”) to eliminate retail price competition?

Yes. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Apple orchestrated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugia

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Did a company acting as a vertical “hub” commit a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by knowingly organizing a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy among its suppliers (the “spokes”) to eliminate retail price competition?

Conclusion

This decision solidifies the principle that a vertical market participant acting as Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute i

Legal Rule

A vertical actor that organizes a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy among its suppliers Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu

Legal Analysis

The Second Circuit rejected Apple's argument that its conduct should be analyzed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla par

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Apple orchestrated a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy among major publishers to end
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dol

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+