From a quick glance it seems the argument was basically that the plaintiffs weren’t entitled to sue because they weren’t the people Apple was directly using their monopoly against.
On that theory, the app developers could sue Apple because Apple demands an allegedly monopoly abusing 30% commission from them but the end consumer can’t because they are too far removed from the alleged abuse.
They sort of deal with the argument that consumers are in fact buying from Apple by arguing that the majority’s ruling just means that Apple would need to change their processes so that money goes direct to the developers who then have to pay Apple and suddenly no monopoly problem. They say that can’t be right either.
Even though that’s exactly what they say is happening and is the right answer.
I find Gorsuch’s opinions extremely difficult to read. He tries to present a folksy tone but uses it to waffle on and hide declarative statements rather than legal argument.
