Read the juicy bits from the courts that control Apple about its anti-competitive app store practices

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is angry with Apple. Really, Really pissed off.

With Rogers’ newly released 80-page decision, she tasked Apple and its executives to defy court orders. Fortnite Maker Epic Games original case. Apple won that round a lot, but the tech giant was held not as a monopoly, so the court found Apple behaved in a certain area in an anti-competitive way. By not offering customers other ways that app developers pay outside of Apple’s own payment platform.

The judge determined that the developers could process payments through their website and payment systems, as they should be able to link to other ways to make purchases from within their app. By doing so, developers could have forgotten to pay Apple’s 30% fee for in-app purchases.

However, Apple has become even more cumbersome for developers who chose this option. We have reduced the fee to 27% for these external purchases and added a “scary screen.” This method can cost developers even more if they take into account their own payment processing fees, as they only offer a 3% discount from Apple’s original fees.

As a result, Apple has protected its profitable App Store business model at the expense of its reputation, its relationship with the iOS developer community, and its good standing in the eyes of the law.

It is clear that she has plenty of Apple tactics in Rogers’ decision, and the verdict is filled with juicy information, which she expresses clearly.

Apple responded to the court’s ruling in the following statement: “We strongly oppose the decision. We will appeal in accordance with the court’s order.”

If you don’t have time to read all 80 pages yourself, I’ve rounded up some of the best bits below. (The emphasis is ours).

Judge calls on Apple for trying to route the original orders around

“Apple’s response to an injunction burdens reliability. After two sets of evidence hearings, the truth emerged. Despite knowing its obligation, Apple continued to act anti-competitively, only to disrupt the injunction’s goals and maintain its revenue streams. I can’t see through that obvious concealment (2024 evidence hearing). ”

Judge accuses Apple of being even more anti-competitive and lying under oath

“In stark contrast to Apple’s first on-court testimony, business documents from the same period reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and chose the most anti-competitive option every turn. I lied under my vows.“

“Cook chose poorly”: hearing CFO advice, judge CEO Tim Cook

“Internally, Philip Schiller had insisted that Apple would follow the injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly …The court will introduce the issue to US lawyers in the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal cont criminal law is appropriate. ”

…

“Cook was a tiebreaker because Schiller didn’t defend the committee and Maestri was a full defender of his favorable approach.”

(Has anyone noticed that Maestri is no longer at Apple?)

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation”: Judge says it’s something Apple will follow. now

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There is nothing to do after the parties knowingly ignore the court’s order. Time is the essence. The court will not tolerate any further delays. As we ordered before, Apple doesn’t hinder the competition. The court orders Apple to implement new anti-competitive actions to avoid compliance with the injunction. Apple will not immediately interfere with the developer’s ability to communicate with users, or charge or charge new fees for purchases outside of the app. ”

The judge says Apple delayed the proceedings to protect its profits

“Apple engaged in tactics to delay the lawsuit. The court later concluded that delays were equivalent to profits.”

“…In the end, Epic and Apple hired three special masters and reviewed Apple’s privilege claims after the Review (see, for example, Dkt. No. 1191) revealed that Apple’s production position had an advantage after the disbandment at the evidence hearing.”

…

“The court further found that Apple abused the privilege designations of its lawyers and clients to delay the lawsuit and obscure its decision-making process. Guaranteed sanctions to prevent future fraud. Apple is licensed on May 15, 2025, with Epic’s attorney’s fees alone for this matter, and with the total cost of Special Masters Review and Epic’s attorney’s fees. The parties shall meet and award the actual amount. ”

Apple hides decisions from the court

“In the simplest configuration, a ‘link-out purchase’ after an injunction is purchased from the Apple platform allows consumers to leave the platform using the link in the app. Now, Apple has expanded its fee range by not only charging a 27% fee for developers, but also by requesting a 27% fee for any committee that requires a digital committee. “It will take place within 7 days via an external purchase link on the developer’s website. … Apple hides its decision-making process It was only revealed by the court at the second evidence hearing in 2025. ”

…

“Apple coded its activities as compliance with injunctions ‘Michigan Project‘…When the 9th Circuit issued its injunctive stay on December 8, 2021 (Dkt. No. 841), it appears that Apple has halted its compliance efforts. ”

Apple knew it wasn’t compliant with the injunction

“The court now understands that despite the fact that Apple currently has evidence that it had knowledge of how to investigate the landscape and harm the developers, it is not complying with the goals of the injunction, but at its June 20, 2023 meeting, Apple decided to charge a fee for the link-out purchase, but its committee’s knowledge and considerations have not yet been decided. It was hidden from the court It has not been revealed until the 2025 hearing. ”

The judge says Vice President of Treasury Alex Roman lied under oath

“Testimony from Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance; It was full of misdirections and complete lies. He even testified that Apple has not considered equivalents to estimate the cost of alternative payment solutions that developers need to source to encourage link-out purchases. ”

…

“But Mr. Rome didn’t stop there. He also testified until January 16, 2024 that he had no idea what charges Apple would charge for link-out purchases.

Q. And do you think Apple has decided to charge a 27% fee for linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024?

A. The decision for that day has been made.

Q. It’s your testimony that Apple didn’t know until January 16th, 2024 – what fees will be charged for linked purchases?

A. That’s correct. ”

“Another lie under the vow: Business documents from the same period reveal, on the contrary, that the main elements of Apple’s plans, including the 27% committee, were decided in July 2023.

Neither Apple nor its lawyers have now corrected the obvious lies. They did not attempt to withdraw or attack the testimony (though Apple requested that the court give other testimony). Therefore, it is believed that Apple has adopted lies and misrepresentations in this court. ”

Apple has made scary screens even more scary

“Apple deployed a warning message called “Scare Screen” to prevent users from using third-party payment options. ”

…

“The screen on the right is called a “sheet.” This is a full screen takeover after the user clicks outside.
link. Move left to increase the user’s warning level. Again, Apple has opted for the most anti-competitive option: full-screen takeover. ”

…

Again, Apple has decided on the most anti-competitive option: the “even worse” option, which includes the developer’s name rather than the app name. All of this is hidden from the court and has not been revealed at the May 2024 evidence hearing. ”

“There were few developers signed up for the Link Qualification Program (external purchase link).

“As of the May 2024 hearing, only 34 of the App Store’s roughly 136,000 developers had applied for the program, with 17 of these developers not offering in-app purchases first. In May 2024, Apple argued that developers could take more time to take advantage of the link’s implementation fees and that adoption rates were unknown. Apple attempted to mislead it here.“

The court believes Apple violated the injunction letter and spirit

“There are several issues with Apple’s argument. First, it is ridiculous to expect the court to repeat the contents of the 180-page order issued simultaneously with the injunction of one paragraph. The latter flows from the former. Apple violated the literal text. Third, contrary to Apple’s position, other courts within this circuit and other circuits turn to the spirit of injunctions when litigators apply a questionable literal interpretation of injunctions, particularly when the interpretation is designed to avoid the goal of injunctions. ”

…

In short, Apple’s actions lack justification. It is not suppressed by the text of the injunctive, and requires a tense and questionable interpretation of the language, urging to completely ignore this court’s 180-page injunct and the 9th page 91 opinion, and lying to the witness stand.

The court says the requirement for link-out transactions was not justified

“Apple justification for these requirements (described above) Strain trust. Most notably, to highlight Apple’s worthless justification, Apple does not require developers to sell physical products to apply for linking qualifications before deploying a link out transaction. Apple only imposes these restrictions on linkouts that compete with IAP. ”

The court is emptying Apple

“Apple’s actions violate the injunction. Non-compliance was far from “technical or de minimis.” Lack of Apple’s proper justification, knowledge of the economic inevitability of compliance programs, motivation to protect illegal revenue streams, enact new, de facto anti-competitive structures, and create reverse justifications The court cannot see any universe as a product of sincerity, realistic or virtually. or a reasonable interpretation of a court order. The court holds Apple in civil cont. Sanctions and remedies for Apple’s violations are listed in Infrastructure Section IV. ”

…

“Apple has deliberately chosen not to comply with this court’s injunction. It aims to create new anti-competitive barriers This will maintain a valuable revenue stream, both by design and in reality. A source of revenue that was previously found to be anti-competitive. This court considered such disobedience to be a total miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. In this court, there is no second bite on the apple. ”