Specifically section 17200 which disallows unfair business acts or practices.
And specifically what courts have held that this makes illegal would include business acts that "otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition".
Not sure where you are getting your incorrect definition of the words "control the market".
But based on your other comment, it seems you are also under the very common mistaken idea that a company has to have a "supermajority" of a market for it to fall under anti-trust, or anti-competition law.
Thats not true. Even federally, which is has a much less expansive definition of anti-competitive behavior, than california.
There have been multiple federal judges who have ruled that even a company with less than 50% of the market, could be covered under anti-competition laws.
Its ok though. You probably weren't aware of this, and were just following this very common mistake, about the definition that anti-competition laws use.
Most people don't actually read court cases themselves, and just repeat these common mis-understandings.
Source:
"See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors")."
Thats the source for federal law, and the common legal opinion is that california law is actually much more broad, and prevents more things.
But if you want a specific example, that used california law, you could just look at the recent Apple case, which did rule that Apple had engaged in some anti-competitive behavior (even though, it didn't rule that way on every single count. It still ruled that way on at least 1 of them).
So a judge, in california, has already ruled that Apple could engage in some illegal anti-competitive behavior, despite not having a "supermajority", even if that court case is going to appeal right now.
My definition of "control the market" here is the plain meaning of the words: Apple does not control either the mobile OS market OR the mobile message market. In the former, they have a significant rival in Android, which really DOES have a serious majority of the handsets used worldwide. In the case of the latter, multiple other options exist for messaging on both iOS and Android, so whatever iMessage does is just a bit player. Most people here are just salty it works very well, and that they can't have it without buying an iPhone.
Congratulations. You have found, presumably by broad googling, a case that suggests a minority market player can still be found to be misbehaving. Of course, you provide absolutely ZERO context for the citation, which is honestly part for the course here. What was the behavior in question?
For this to be a convincing argument, you're going to have to explain what the judge FOUND in this case, and why that applies to Apple. Or is your point to just say "LOOK! Someone with less than 50% of a market can still engage in illegal restraint of trade!"? If so, sure, granted. But the larger point stands:
In this particular case, there is nothing to suggest that Apple is ANYWHERE NEAR a Sherman Act problem w/r/t iMessage, because:
- You don't have to use iMessage even if you use iOS, because there exist several other competing messaging tools; and
- You don't have to use iOS, because there is at least one very significant mobile OS player in the market
Wanting to use iMessage without using iOS is a common desire, but simply wanting a thing doesn't entitle you to it. Apple is not violating your rights by not giving you this.
> that suggests a minority market player can still be found to be misbehaving
Great, so I am correct on that, and you repeated an incorrect mis-conception that a supermajority is required. I provided sources, whereas you just asserted that a supermajority is required, without any justification at all, and were actually wrong on that.
You can feel free to do more research if you want. Because I know that you will not be able find conflicting court precedent that says that a super majority is "required". The actual court precedent proves others.
But I will remind you again, that you said this "because to do that you have to have a supermajority market share". And this is wrong, if you intended to say that a supermajority of a market is required for something to break anti-competition or anti-trust laws.
Since I have shown you a definitively wrong statement, I'd reccomend that you use this as a wake up call, that you haven't actually looked into this enough to know what you are talking about.
I can't provide hundreds of hours of teaching lessons to you, on how this stuff works, when you are getting basic facts like that wrong, unfortunately.
> You have found, presumably by broad googling
I have those sources saved, actually, because I got so annoyed at people repeating this very common and incorrect assertion that a supermajority is required for something to be illegally anti-competitive, when the court precedent is clear that it is not the case. So I looked into this enough, that I found extensive legal opinions on this saying otherwise.
> a case
It was not "a case". It was 3 cases. And if you had read or paid attention to the sources I posted, you'd see that it was 3, which makes me think that you didn't actually read them.
You can either do the research or not. I don't care. I've done it, and found that it is absolutely not the case that a super majority is required, and I've pointed you to actual court opinions saying so.
> Apple does not control either the mobile
Actually, there is another court precedent that proves that actually, Yes, Apple has engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior, related to its control of the mobile market. It was the Epic vs Apple case. And in that case, there was an instance where, yes, Apple did engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior, due to its control of the market.
> there is nothing to suggest that Apple
Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple's behavior was illegally anti-competitive , actually. So that judge disagrees with you, and thinks that yes there is an instance where their control of the market is large enough, that they could engage in illegal, anti-competitive behavior.
> why that applies to Apple
The point being proven here, is that we have court precedent, even for Apple specifically, that yes their control of the market is large enough, where yes it is possible for their behavior to be illegally anti-competitive.
Unfortunately, its not really possible to engage in the more complicated discussion of how it could apply to messager, if you aren't even willing to accept 2 basic premises, which is that Yes it is possible for behavior to be illegally anti-competitive, without a supermajority, and 2 Apple has already been ruled to have a large enough share of the market, that some behavior could be illegally anti-competitive.
These are basic facts, and in order to move on from that, you'd need to have actually read a couple hundred pages of the Epic Vs Apple case, and watched the trials, like I have, if you want to understand Apple specifically.
Again: Wanting to use iMessage without using iOS is a common desire, but simply wanting a thing doesn't entitle you to it. Apple is not violating your rights by not giving you this.
I gave you a whole essay where I talking to you about anti-trust law, and illegal anti-competitive behavior here, where I referenced actual case law, such as the Epic vs Apple case, where Apple was ruled to have engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior here.
So I will repeat again, my main point, and keep it simple, so you will actually read it. Apple has already, by the court system, ruled to have a large enough control of the market such that it is possible for them to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior.
You tried to imply that this would be impossible, for Apple to currently be having a large enough control of the market, such that it can engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior. And that is wrong. Because the court system already ruled otherwise.
If you think what you've done is an essay, you should retake some composition classes. This has been more akin to a contextless info-dump.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to dive into the transcripts here to figure out exactly how the issues in these cases apply to messaging, a topic I note you studiously avoid.
This part right here is the important part of how to apply it to apple:
"You tried to imply that this would be impossible, for Apple to currently be having a large enough control of the market, such that it can engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior. And that is wrong. Because the court system already ruled otherwise."
Precisely which antitrust statutes is Apple violating? Please be specific.