"...At The Committee for Justice blog, Ashley Baker writes that 'many of the initial reactions' to Monday’s decision in Apple v. Pepper, in which the court held that a lawsuit against Apple by iPhone users who allege that Apple is violating federal antitrust laws by requiring them to buy apps only from the company’s App Store can go forward, 'are either misplaced or overblown,' because the decision 'did not address the central question of whether the App Store violates antitrust law, nor did it address the broader irrelevant question of whether Apple is a monopoly.' At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Walter Olson writes that '[t]he wider worry … is that the majority (significantly joined by [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh) did not merely resolve a technical puzzle about how the law’s language applies to an unusually designed supply chain, but seemed inclined along the way to adopt an ungenerous and narrow reading' of a prior case that “serves as a major check against runaway litigation.' At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman remarks on the “strategic' decision of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to assign the opinion to Kavanaugh, 'the unexpected member of the majority.'..."