Apple wins antitrust suit after judge throws out case over Venmo, cash app payments

U.S. District Judge Vince Chabiria has dismissed an antitrust lawsuit filed by Venmo and Cash App customers against Apple, alleging the California company's Apple Cash product is anti-competitive.

The lawsuit, originally filed in San Jose on November 17, 2023, sought to hold Apple accountable for its monopolistic practices involving the Apple iOS App Store.

According to the complaint, Apple's Apple Pay service allegedly makes it difficult or impossible for competitors to introduce desirable features, such as integrating decentralized cryptocurrency payments into existing or new products and services.

Accordingly, the Complainants state that Venmo, CashApp and other existing or new services have failed to promote competitive pricing and enhanced features for iOS end users.

Related: Apple Accused of Blocking Crypto Technology for P2P Payments

Judge Chabiria dismissed Apple's motion to dismiss on March 26, 2005.

The record continues that the plaintiffs have failed to establish what antitrust practices occurred or why competitors such as Zele were not included in the original complaint. It also refers to the plaintiff's case as “speculative,” and lists what the court found to be flawed.

Essentially, the initial complaint alleges that Apple's terms of service prohibit companies from including cryptocurrency features in their products, such as Venmo and Cash apps, from appearing on the App Store. The judge's ruling cites applicable law (Policy 3.1.5 of the App Store TOS) and denies its applicability to the lawsuit.

According to the document:

“While Guideline 3.1.5 restricts decentralized cryptocurrency transactions (which seems questionable), it's unclear how companies would create an illegal agreement by agreeing to a guideline that defines the Apple Store's requirements for applications that facilitate cryptocurrency transactions.

In the future, the plaintiffs will be given 21 days from the date of filing of the suit to file amendments before the court rejects the case, forcing them to proceed with the suit.

However, when the judge's final comments on the application are tenant, the odds may not be in the plaintiff's favor:

“Plaintiffs should not assume that the defects identified in this ruling are confined to the complaint. Apple's motion to dismiss raises many potential problems. Indeed, it is difficult to see how amendment would save this case. However, as a precaution, the motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend.” If no amended complaint is filed within 21 days of this decision, dismissal will be with prejudice.