UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CORONAVIRUS REPORTER; No. 22-15166 CALID, INC.; PRIMARY PRODUCTIONS LLC, D.C. No. 3:21-cv- 05567-EMC Plaintiffs-Appellants, and OPINION JEFFREY D. ISAACS, Dr.,

Plaintiff,

v. APPLE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee, and FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Defendant. 2 CORONAVIRUS REPORTER V. APPLE, INC.

JEFFREY D. ISAACS, Dr., No. 22-15167

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv- and 05567-EMC CORONAVIRUS REPORTER; CALID, INC.; PRIMARY PRODUCTIONS LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v. APPLE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee, and FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 29, 2023 San Francisco, California

Filed November 3, 2023 CORONAVIRUS REPORTER V. APPLE, INC. 3

Before: Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Gould

SUMMARY *

Antitrust

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of an antitrust action against Apple, Inc., alleging monopolist operation of the Apple App Store. The panel held that appellants failed to state an antitrust claim under Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act, arising from Apple’s rejection of their apps for distribution through the App Store, because they did not sufficiently allege a plausible relevant market, either for their rejected apps as compared to other apps, or for apps in general. The panel held that appellants failed to state a claim for breach of contract under California law because they did not identify relevant specific provisions of Apple’s Developer Agreement or Developer Program License Agreement or show that Apple breached a specific provision. Appellants also failed to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or for fraud.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 CORONAVIRUS REPORTER V. APPLE, INC.

COUNSEL Keith Mathews (argued), American Wealth Protection, Manchester, New Hampshire; Stephan M. Kernan, The Kernan Law Firm, Beverly Hills, California; for Plaintiffs- Appellants. Jeffrey D. Isaacs (argued), West Palm Beach, Florida, pro se Petitioner. Julian W. Kleinbrodt (argued) and Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, California; Cynthia E. Richman, Zachary B. Copeland, and Harry R.S. Phillips, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mark A. Perry, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellee.

OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Coronavirus Reporter, CALID, Inc., Primary Productions LLC, and Dr. Jeffrey D. Isaacs sued Defendant-Appellee Apple for its allegedly monopolist operation of the Apple App Store. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and denied the remaining motions as moot. Plaintiffs-Appellants appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. CORONAVIRUS REPORTER V. APPLE, INC. 5

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2008, a year after launching the iPhone, Apple introduced the App Store. In order to distribute apps on the App Store, app developers must a