Cote determined the group of consumers had "more than met their burden" to allow them to sue as a group, reports Reuters. She denied Apple's argument that the claims were too different from each other, or that some weren't harmed because the prices of some e-books fell.
"This is a paradigmatic antitrust class action," wrote Cote.
In July 2013, Cote found Apple guilty of colluding with publishers in a case brought the U.S. Department of Justice. Cote has been accused of ruling before hearing the evidence after she pre-declared a "tentative view" that Apple was an antitrust violator before trial. After convicting the iPad of being a conspiracy to increase digital book prices, she appointed her friend Michael Bromwich as an external monitor to review antitrust at Apple. Bromwich allegedly took his role too far leading Apple to request his removal from the case. In a report on the case, the WSJ blasted Cote calling her a 'disgrace to the judiciary'.
Apple has asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out Cote's ruling from last year, as well as her decision to appoint an external monitor but the court rejected the request to halt oversight while the appeal is pending.