Topics
Latest
AI
Amazon
Image Credits:Bryce Durbin / TechCrunch
Apps
Biotech & Health
Climate
Image Credits:Bryce Durbin / TechCrunch
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
endeavor
EVs
Fintech
Fundraising
gadget
Gaming
Government & Policy
computer hardware
layoff
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
seclusion
Robotics
Security
Social
Space
Startups
TikTok
Transportation
Venture
More from TechCrunch
event
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Podcasts
video
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
touch Us
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is make off at Apple . Really , reallypissed off .
In Rogers ’ newly free 80 - Sir Frederick Handley Page decisiveness , she exact Apple and its executive to chore for defying the court ’s orders in itsoriginal case with Fortnite maker Epic Games . Though Apple largely won that round , as it was determined the tech giant was not a monopolist , the tourist court decide that Apple was behaving in an anticompetitive style in one specific area : by not allowing app developer to offer their client other way to pay outdoors of Apple ’s own requital platform .
The judge ruled that developers should be able-bodied to link to other means to make purchases from inside their apps , so they could process payments via their own web site and requital systems . In doing so , developers should have been able to precede paying Apple ’s 30 % commission on in - app purchases .
Apple , however , made it even more onerous for any developers who prefer this pick . It only dropped its commission to 27 % for these outside purchases and added “ scare screenland ” : warning to deter customers who may have been lure to go the route of outside purchases . With only a 3 % deduction off Apple ’s original commission , this method acting could finish up costing developer even more when their own requital processing fees were taken into consideration .
As a result , Apple protected its lucrative App Store business model at the expense of its repute , its family relationship with the iOS developer community , and its in effect standing in the eyes of the law .
In Rogers ’ decision , it ’s clean she ’s had enough of Apple ’s tactics , and the ruling is full of voluptuous tidbits where she clearly show so .
Apple responded to the court ’s opinion with the following financial statement : “ We strongly disagree with the decision . We will follow with the Margaret Court ’s order and we will invoke . ”
Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
If you do n’t have time to read all 80 pages yourself , we ’ve rounded up some of the best number below .
Judge calls out Apple for attempting to route around her original orders
“ Apple ’s response to the Injunction separate out credulity . After two curing of evidentiary hearings , the truth emerged . Apple , despite fuck its obligations thereunder , thwarted the Injunction ’s goals , and proceed its anticompetitive demeanor solely to uphold its revenue flow . Remarkably , Apple believed that this Courtwould not see through its obvious cover - up ( the 2024 evidentiary listening ) . ”
Judge accuses Apple of being even more anticompetitive and lying under oath
“ In stark contrast to Apple ’s initial in - Margaret Court testimony , contemporary clientele documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every good turn chose the most anticompetitive alternative . To hide the truth , Vice - President of Finance , Alex Roman , outright lied under oath . ”
“Cook chose poorly”: Judge slams CEO Tim Cook for listening to CFO’s advice
“ Internally , Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction , but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead let Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance squad to convert him otherwise . Cook chose poorly … The Court cite the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether condemnable despite legal proceeding are appropriate . ”
…
“ As Mr. Schiller was not advocating for a commission , and Mr. Maestri was fully advocating for the lucrative feeler , Mr. Cook was the tie - surf . ”
( Anyone detect that Maestri is n’t at Apple anymore , by the room ? )
“This is an injunction, not a negotiation”: Judge says Apple is to complynow
“ This is an enjoining , not a talks . There are no do - overs once a party wilfully disregards a court order . Time is of the essence . The Court will not allow further delay . As previously ordered , Apple will not impede competition . The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avert compliance with the Injunction . Effective directly Apple will no longer obturate developers ’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a unexampled mission on off - app purchase . ”
Judge says Apple delayed proceedings to protect its profits
“ Apple take in tactics to delay the proceedings . The Court later concluded that delay equaled profits . ”
“ finally , Epic and Apple hired three special masters to review Apple ’s perquisite arrogate after its re - review . ( See , for instance , Dkt . No . 1191 . ) Apple ’s production posture , after its feigning at the evidentiary earreach , let out that delay do work to its vantage . ”
“ THE courtroom FURTHER FINDS that Apple ’s insult of attorney - client exclusive right designations to delay proceedings and obscure its decision - making unconscious process sanction sanction to deter next misconduct . Apple is SANCTIONED in the amount of the full cost of the special masters ’ review and Epic ’s lawyer ’ fee on this outlet alone through approximately May 15 , 2025 , the anticipated date of completion . The company shall converge and confer on the actual amount due . ”
Apple hid its decision-making from the court
“ In its most simple configuration , ‘ tie - out leverage ’ after the Injunction are leverage made off the Apple political program , but from which a consumer can leave the platform using a radio link on the app . Now , under the revised Guidelines , Apple not only charges developers ‘ a 27 % commission , ’ but also expanded the scope of the committee requirement by demanding a 27 % committal on digital goods and military service minutes that take place on a developer ’s website upon prompt use of the tie , and payment for any ‘ digital goods and services transactions that take place on a developer ’s website within seven days after a user tap through an External Purchase Link … to an outside site . ’ … Apple hide its conclusion - making process from the Court only to have it uncovered at the 2d evidential hearing in 2025 . ”
“ Apple coded its activities pertain to Injunction compliance as ‘ Project Michigan ’ … When the Ninth Circuit issued its stay of the Injunction on December 8 , 2021 ( Dkt . No . 841 ) , Apple appear to have ceased any compliance effort . ”
Apple knew it wasn’t complying with the injunction
“ Despite the fact that the Court now has evidence that Apple investigated the landscape , knew how it would harm developers , and understood it would not comply with the goal of the Injunction , Apple nonetheless determined at the June 20 , 2023 group meeting that it would charge a commission on link - out purchase , although it had not yet resolve what that commission would be … Apple ’s knowledge and thoughtfulness of these issues was hide from the Court and not revealed until the 2025 hearing . ”
Judge says VP of finance Alex Roman lied under oath
“ The testimony of Mr. Roman , Vice President of Finance , was replete with misdirection and straight-out lie . He even went so far as to bear witness that Apple did not look at comparables to forecast the price of alternate payment solutions that developer would need to secure to alleviate connect - out purchases . ”
“ Mr. Roman did not blockade there , however . He also testified that up until January 16 , 2024 , Apple had no musical theme what fee it would visit on link up - out purchases :
Q. And I take it that Apple adjudicate to inflict a 27 percentage fee on associate purchases prior to January 16 , 2024 , right ?
A. The decision was made that Clarence Day .
Q. It ’s your testimonial that up until January 16 , 2024 , Apple had no estimate what fee it ’s pop off to inflict on join purchases ?
A. That is correct . ”
“ Another lie under oath : contemporaneous commercial enterprise documents bring out that on the reverse , the main components of Apple ’s plan , including the 27 % mission , were determined in July 2023 .
Neither Apple , nor its counsel , correct the , now obvious , lies . They did not attempt to take the testimony or to have it stricken ( although Apple did quest that the Court strike other testimony ) . Thus , Apple will be held to have adopt the lies and misrepresentation to this Court . ”
Apple made its Scare Screens even scarier
“ Apple deploy a warning content , refer to as a ‘ panic filmdom , ’ to discourage users from using third - political party payment choice . ”
“ The filmdom on the right hand is called a ‘ sheet of paper , ’ which is a full filmdom coup after the substance abuser clicks on an externallink . move left to right , the warning level to the drug user increases . Again , Apple choose the most anticompetitive choice , namely the full blind takeover . ”
“ Again , Apple decided on the most anticompetitive pick , that is , the ‘ even bad ’ pick of let in the developer ’s name rather than the app name . All of this was hidden from the Court and not give away in the May 2024 evidentiary hearings . ”
“ Few developer signed up for the link entitlement programme ( external purchase links ) . ”
“ As of the May 2024 auditory sense , only 34 developer out of the some 136,000 full developers on the App Store use for the platform , and seventeen of those developers had not offered in - app purchases in the first spot . In May 2024 , Apple argued that it would take more time for developer to take advantage of the Link Entitlement and that the adoption rates could not be known . Apple attempted here to mislead . ”
The court thinks Apple violated the letter and spirit of the injunction
“ There are several issues with Apple ’s argument . First , it is laughable to expect any court of law to reduplicate the content of a 180 - page order issued in co-occurrence with a simultaneously issued one - paragraph injunction . The latter flows from the former . To suggest otherwise strains credulity . Second , even define to the four recession of the Injunction , Apple violated the literal text . Third , adverse to Apple ’s position , other courts within this and other electric circuit will depend to the feel of the injunction when a litigator applies a doubtfully literal rendering of the injunction , peculiarly where that interpreting is design to hedge the injunction ’s goals . ”
“ In short , Apple ’s behavior lacks any justification : it does not comport with the text of the Injunction , requires a strained and questionable rendering of that language , entirely ignores this Court ’s 180 - varlet enjoining and the Ninth Circuit ’s 91 - page impression , and prompted Trygve Lie on the witness stand . The jurisprudence requires that Apple be on notice of the orbit of permissible demeanour to prevail Apple in civil contempt . ”
The court says the requirements for link-out transactions weren’t justified
“ Apple ’s justification for these essential ( fix forward above ) filtrate credulity . Most notably , and to underscore Apple ’s meritless justifications , Apple does not require developer selling physical goods to apply for a contact entitlement before deploy link - out proceedings . Apple imposes these limitation only for link - out that contend with IAP . ”
The court holds Apple in contempt
“ Apple ’s conduct go against the Injunction . The non - compliance was far from ‘ technological or de minimis . ’ Apple ’s lack of equal justification , knowledge of the economical non - viability of its deference broadcast , motive to protect its illegal revenue current and institute a Modern de facto anticompetitive structure , and then make a turnabout - engineered justification to proffer to the Court can not , in any universe , real or practical , be see as product of sound faith or a reasonable interpretation of the Court ’s rules of order . The Court HOLDS Apple in polite contempt . Sanctions and relief with respectfulness to Apple ’s noncompliance are set forth infra Section IV . ”
“ Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court ’s Injunction . It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would , by design and in effect , maintain a valued revenue stream ; a revenue flow previously found to be anticompetitive . That it guess this Court would stand such insubordination was a gross misestimation . As always , the coverup made it worse . For this Court , there is no 2d bite at the apple . ”
