A technology company specializing in digital advertising is challenging its removal from a major app store, arguing the ban has damaged the broader digital advertising marketplace. The case, now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, centers on whether the removal of a single advertising application can constitute anticompetitive behavior.
Unlockd Media developed an application that displays full-screen advertisements to users when they unlock their mobile devices. In exchange for viewing these ads, users receive various discounts and rewards. The app was removed from the platform due to policies that prohibit advertisements from appearing outside an application’s own environment and restrict apps from encouraging users to interact with ads.
The company’s attorney, Justin Strother from Diamond McCarthy in Houston, argued that U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam incorrectly dismissed the antitrust lawsuit last year. The lower court had determined that the app store prohibition affected only Unlockd rather than the broader digital advertising marketplace.
During oral arguments on Friday in San Francisco, Strother contended this conclusion was “demonstrably false.” He explained that the ban created harm extending beyond his client to include end users who view mobile ads and advertisers purchasing digital advertising space.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen questioned the scope of the relevant market, prompting Strother to clarify that the digital advertising marketplace spans nationwide plus six additional countries and encompasses all mobile devices. The judge noted that proving antitrust violations becomes more difficult when dealing with such an expansive market.
The advertising company’s legal team emphasized that even the platform operator suffers financial consequences from the ban. Through Unlockd’s application, the platform would typically receive up to 30 percent of generated revenue. Following the prohibition, this revenue stream disappeared entirely.
Strother suggested the platform operator viewed Unlockd’s offering as competitive threat that could potentially draw advertisers away from its own advertising products. He detailed how the platform initially approved the Unlockd applications before conducting investigations over approximately two years, during which it repeatedly changed its position and requested additional information.
Dee Bansal, representing the platform operator, countered that Unlockd failed to establish legal standing for its antitrust claim because it could not demonstrate marketplace harm from the app’s removal. “Unlockd only pleaded harm to itself, not harm to competition as a whole,” Bansal stated. She challenged the notion that removing this single application could meaningfully affect pricing, output, or innovation in the vast digital advertising sector.
In response, Strother maintained that eliminating a national competitor from the marketplace constitutes injury to competition itself. “This court can decide on the basis alone that Unlockd was removed, that there was injury,” he argued.
The appeals panel included U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke and U.S. District Judge Robert Huie, who participated by designation. The case highlights ongoing tensions between app developers and platform operators regarding marketplace policies and competitive practices in the digital economy. The court’s decision could establish important precedent for how antitrust law applies to app store removals and whether individual app bans can constitute broader marketplace harm.
Leave a Reply