Court Bans Apple From Taking Commission on Web Purchases in Major Win for Developers
A federal judge has found the company in "willful violation" of a 2021 injunction related to its App Store practices and stating that Apple's "continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated." The ruling comes from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games.In a detailed 80-page order, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concluded that Apple's plan to comply with the original anti-steering injunction was insufficient and anticompetitive. "Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity," the judge wrote, finding that the company, despite knowing its obligations, "thwarted the Injunction's goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream."The court found Apple "knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option." This included introducing a new 27% commission on purchases made through external links originating from apps—a commission the judge described as "again tied to nothing"—where previously no fee existed. The court determined this new fee structure, combined with other restrictions, made alternatives to Apple's In-App Purchase system economically non-viable for developers.Continue ReadingShare Article:Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, EmailFollow iClarified:Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Newsletter, App Store, YouTube
A federal judge has found the company in "willful violation" of a 2021 injunction related to its App Store practices and stating that Apple's "continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated." The ruling comes from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games.
In a detailed 80-page order, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concluded that Apple's plan to comply with the original anti-steering injunction was insufficient and anticompetitive. "Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity," the judge wrote, finding that the company, despite knowing its obligations, "thwarted the Injunction's goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream."
The court found Apple "knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option." This included introducing a new 27% commission on purchases made through external links originating from apps—a commission the judge described as "again tied to nothing"—where previously no fee existed. The court determined this new fee structure, combined with other restrictions, made alternatives to Apple's In-App Purchase system economically non-viable for developers.
Continue Reading
Share Article:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Email
Follow iClarified:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Newsletter, App Store, YouTube
In a detailed 80-page order, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concluded that Apple's plan to comply with the original anti-steering injunction was insufficient and anticompetitive. "Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity," the judge wrote, finding that the company, despite knowing its obligations, "thwarted the Injunction's goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream."
The court found Apple "knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option." This included introducing a new 27% commission on purchases made through external links originating from apps—a commission the judge described as "again tied to nothing"—where previously no fee existed. The court determined this new fee structure, combined with other restrictions, made alternatives to Apple's In-App Purchase system economically non-viable for developers.
Continue Reading
Share Article:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Email
Follow iClarified:
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Newsletter, App Store, YouTube
