Consumers told the Ninth Circuit they need to appeal a district court ruling that decertified a class of iPhone buyers expected to reach 200 million members in an antitrust case over Apple's App Store policies because the ruling was a "death knell" for the case.

The consumers filed a proposed reply brief Friday in support of their petition appealing the decertification ruling. The consumers said the lower court's "erroneous" order has left the named plaintiffs with just $268 in potential damages, instead of the more than $20 billion sought by the class.

"Apple's suggestion the parties should be forced to spend millions of dollars to try claims worth a few hundred — and appeal certification thereafter — is not realistic," the consumers said. "It would grossly misuse judicial resources to undertake such a trial solely to generate a final judgment where, as here, the decertification arose from reversible legal error."

The consumers said the lower court initially accepted an expert's model that calculated overcharges for every App Store transaction, grouped by Apple ID, as a basis for showing that nearly all class members suffered damages from the App Store policies.

But the court then imposed an additional requirement when reviewing the decertification motion and called for the class to identify every member's individual damages before trial. When Apple's data prevented a second expert from performing this additional step, the consumers said the lower court abruptly decertified the class.

"As in any case where, before trial, the identity of purchasers may not be clear from the defendant's records, matching transactions to purchasers is a matter for post-trial administration," the consumers argued.

The case traces back to 2011, accusing Apple of violating antitrust law by monopolizing the distribution of apps on its devices through policies requiring the use of the App Store and its in-app payment system where the tech giant collects commissions of up to 30%.

The allegations are similar to those being brought by video game developer Epic Games against both Apple and Google.

The consumer case previously took a trip all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in 2019 that iPhone users have standing to sue under federal antitrust law that permits damages claims only for customers who purchase directly from the alleged lawbreaker.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers certified a nationwide class last year for individuals who have spent $10 or more on iOS applications or in-app purchases since 2008. The Ninth Circuit later rejected Apple's bid for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification.

But in October, the judge granted Apple's motion for decertification, noting that when she certified the class, she had warned the consumers about finding a reasonable way to determine whether and to what extent consumers were harmed.

She also said she had been assured the consumers' experts could match Apple ID accounts with actual consumers to prove consumer harm, which turned out not to be the case.

In their petition for review, the consumers said all that matters for class certification is calculating the overcharge on every App Store transaction on a classwide basis, and they argued it's not necessary to match the transactions to individual class members until after trial.

Apple responded that Judge Gonzalez Rogers gave the consumers "every chance" to establish a way to show injury through common evidence across the class but said they were consistently unable to do so.

Representatives for Apple and the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

The consumer class is represented by Betsy C. Manifold, Rachele R. Byrd, Mark C. Rifkin, Matthew M. Guiney and Thomas H. Burt of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, and David C. Frederick, Aaron M. Panner, Alex P. Treiger, Caroline A. Schechinger, Kyle M. Wood and Kelley C. Schiffman of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC.

Apple is represented by Cynthia E. Richman, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Daniel G. Swanson, Blaine H. Evanson, Bradley J. Hamburger, Caeli A. Higney, Julian W. Kleinbrodt, Matt Aidan Getz, Eli M. Lazarus and Harry R.S. Phillips of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The case is Pepper et al. v. Apple Inc., case number 25-7122, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.