Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is angry with Apple. I was really, really angry.
In Rogers' newly released 80-page decision, she appointed Apple and its executives to be appointed to violate court orders in the original case at Fortnite Maker Epic Games. 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.”
TechCrunch Events
Berkeley, California | June 5th
Book now
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 obligations, Apple continued its anti-competitive conduct to block the injunction's goals and maintain the revenue stream.
Judge accuses Apple of being even more anti-competitive and lying under oath
“In stark contrast to Apple's first in-court testimony, business documents from the same period reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and chose the most anti-competitive option on every turn.
“Cook chose poorly”: hearing CFO advice, judge CEO Tim Cook
“Internally, Philip Schiller insisted that Apple would comply with the injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince them otherwise. Cook introduces the US power of attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal detention proceedings are 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”: The judge says that Apple is what it is to follow now.
“This is an injunction, not a negotiation. It will not be done after the party intentionally ignores the court's order. Time is essential. The court will not tolerate any further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will prevent Apple from carrying out new anti-emergency activities. The committee to buy from 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's abuse of legal and client privilege designations to delay lawsuits and obscure decision-making processes justifies sanctions to prevent future misconduct. Apple will be awarded May 15th, 2025 award dates, with special master's degree and Epic's attorney's fees alone, with EPIC's attorney's fees on this matter alone.
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 seven days via an external purchase link on the developer's website. … Apple has hidden the decision-making process from the court to be discovered at its second evidence hearing in 2025.”
…
“Apple coded activities related to injunction compliance as “Michigan Project Michigan.” It appears that Apple stopped compliance efforts when the 9th Circuit issued its injunctive stay on December 8, 2021 (Dkt. No. 841). ”
Apple knew it wasn't compliant with the injunction
“We understand that despite the fact that there is evidence that Apple currently knows how to investigate the landscape and harm developers, it will not follow the goals of the injunction, but Apple decided to charge a fee for purchasing Link Out at its June 20, 2023 meeting, but Apple's knowledge and court knowledge never revealed its knowledge for 2025.
The judge says Vice President of Treasury Alex Roman lied under oath
“The testimony of Roman, Vice President of Treasury, was full of misdirection and complete lies. He even testified that Apple has not considered comparable costs to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers need to raise to promote 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 oath: business documents from the same period reveal, on the contrary, that key 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 initially. In May 2024, Apple allowed developers to spend more time on the advantage of linking implementers, and Apple could not attempt to be known 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, especially when the interpretation is designed to avoid the goal of the injunction, and when a litigator applies a questionable literal interpretation of the injunction.”
…
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
“The reliability of Apple's justification (described above) stocks for these requirements. To highlight the most prominent and unworthy justification of Apple, Apple does not require developers to sell physical goods to apply for link eligibility before deploying a link out transaction. Apple imposes these restrictions only 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.” Apple's lack of proper legitimacy, the economic impossibility of compliance programs, protecting illegal revenue streams, enacting a de facto anti-competitive structure, paying tribute to the court, and showing no introduction to the fight, the space, to hold court orders, is listed in the IV infrastructure. ”
…
“Apple deliberately chose not to comply with this court's injunction, with the express intention to create a new anti-competitive barrier that will maintain its design and effectively valuable revenue streams.