Apple Will Comply With Court's Ban on Web Purchase Fees, Plans to Appeal
Apple has responded to a federal court ruling that found it in willful violation of a 2021 injunction prohibiting anticompetitive App Store practices, including the imposition of fees on web purchases made outside its platform. In a statement sent to The Verge, Olivia Dalton, Apple's senior director of corporate communications, said, "We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court's order and we will appeal."The response follows a scathing 80-page order issued by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who held Apple in civil contempt and imposed strict new permanent restrictions on the company's App Store policies. The court found that Apple's 27% commission on external purchases—where previously no commission existed—violated both the letter and spirit of the original injunction, and was part of a calculated strategy to maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream.Judge Rogers described Apple's behavior as "thwarting the Injunction's goals," stating that the company had knowingly imposed new barriers to developer communication, including mandated use of generic language, full-screen warnings, and static links designed to "increase friction and increase breakage rates."Continue ReadingShare Article:Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, EmailFollow iClarified:Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Newsletter, App Store, YouTube
Apple has responded to a federal court ruling that found it in willful violation of a 2021 injunction prohibiting anticompetitive App Store practices, including the imposition of fees on web purchases made outside its platform. In a statement sent to The Verge, Olivia Dalton, Apple's senior director of corporate communications, said, "We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court's order and we will appeal."
The response follows a scathing 80-page order issued by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who held Apple in civil contempt and imposed strict new permanent restrictions on the company's App Store policies. The court found that Apple's 27% commission on external purchases—where previously no commission existed—violated both the letter and spirit of the original injunction, and was part of a calculated strategy to maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream.
Judge Rogers described Apple's behavior as "thwarting the Injunction's goals," stating that the company had knowingly imposed new barriers to developer communication, including mandated use of generic language, full-screen warnings, and static links designed to "increase friction and increase breakage rates."
Continue Reading
Share Article:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Email
Follow iClarified:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Newsletter, App Store, YouTube
The response follows a scathing 80-page order issued by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who held Apple in civil contempt and imposed strict new permanent restrictions on the company's App Store policies. The court found that Apple's 27% commission on external purchases—where previously no commission existed—violated both the letter and spirit of the original injunction, and was part of a calculated strategy to maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream.
Judge Rogers described Apple's behavior as "thwarting the Injunction's goals," stating that the company had knowingly imposed new barriers to developer communication, including mandated use of generic language, full-screen warnings, and static links designed to "increase friction and increase breakage rates."
Continue Reading
Share Article:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Email
Follow iClarified:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Newsletter, App Store, YouTube
