Read the juiciest bits from the Apple-Epic court ruling

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is pissed disconnected astatine Apple. Really, really pissed off.

In Rogers’ recently released 80-page decision, she took Apple and its executives to task for defying the court’s orders successful its original lawsuit with Fortnite shaper Epic Games. Though Apple mostly won that round, arsenic it was determined the tech elephantine was not a monopolist, the tribunal decided that Apple was behaving successful an anticompetitive manner successful 1 circumstantial area: by not allowing app developers to connection their customers different ways to wage extracurricular of Apple’s ain outgo platform.

The justice ruled that developers should beryllium capable to nexus to different ways to marque purchases from wrong their apps, truthful they could process payments via their ain website and outgo systems. In doing so, developers should person been capable to forgo paying Apple’s 30% committee connected in-app purchases.

Apple, however, made it adjacent much onerous for immoderate developers who chose this option. It lone dropped its committee to 27% for these extracurricular purchases and added “scare screens”: warnings to dissuade customers who whitethorn person been tempted to spell the way of extracurricular purchases. With lone a 3% discount disconnected Apple’s archetypal commission, this method could extremity up costing developers adjacent much erstwhile their ain outgo processing fees were taken into consideration.

As a result, Apple protected its lucrative App Store concern exemplary astatine the disbursal of its reputation, its narration with the iOS developer community, and its bully lasting successful the eyes of the law.

In Rogers’ decision, it’s wide she’s had capable of Apple’s tactics, and the ruling is afloat of juicy tidbits wherever she intelligibly expresses so.

Apple responded to the court’s ruling with the pursuing statement: “We powerfully disagree with the decision. We volition comply with the court’s bid and we volition appeal.”

If you don’t person clip to work each 80 pages yourself, we’ve rounded up immoderate of the champion bits below.

Judge calls retired Apple for attempting to way astir her archetypal orders

“Apple’s effect to the Injunction strains credulity. After 2 sets of evidentiary hearings, the information emerged. Apple, contempt knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive behaviour solely to support its gross stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not spot done its evident cover-up (the 2024 evidentiary hearing).”

Judge accuses Apple of being adjacent much anticompetitive and lying nether oath

“In stark opposition to Apple’s archetypal in-court testimony, contemporaneous concern documents uncover that Apple knew precisely what it was doing and astatine each crook chose the astir anticompetitive option. To fell the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied nether 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 alternatively allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his concern squad to person him otherwise. Cook chose poorly …The Court refers the substance to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to analyse whether transgression contempt proceedings are appropriate.”

…

“As Mr. Schiller was not advocating for a commission, and Mr. Maestri was afloat advocating for the lucrative approach, Mr. Cook was the tie-breaker.”

(Anyone announcement that Maestri isn’t astatine Apple anymore, by the way?)

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation”: Judge says Apple is to comply now

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are nary do-overs erstwhile a enactment willfully disregards a tribunal order. Time is of the essence. The Court volition not tolerate further delays. As antecedently ordered, Apple volition not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its caller anticompetitive acts to debar compliance with the Injunction. Effective instantly Apple volition nary longer impede developers’ quality to pass with users nor volition they levy oregon enforce a caller committee connected off-app purchases.”

Judge says Apple delayed proceedings to support its profits

“Apple engaged successful tactics to hold the proceedings. The Court aboriginal concluded that hold equaled profits.”

“Ultimately, Epic and Apple hired 3 peculiar masters to reappraisal Apple’s privilege claims aft its re-review. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1191.) Apple’s accumulation positions, aft its dissembling astatine the evidentiary hearing, revealed that hold worked to its advantage.”

…

“THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Apple’s maltreatment of attorney-client privilege designations to hold proceedings and obscure its decision-making process warrants authorisation to deter aboriginal misconduct. Apple is SANCTIONED successful the magnitude of the afloat outgo of the peculiar masters’ reappraisal and Epic’s attorneys’ fees connected this contented unsocial done astir May 15, 2025, the anticipated day of completion. The parties shall conscionable and confer connected the existent magnitude due.”

Apple hid its decision-making from the court

“In its astir elemental configuration, ‘linked-out purchases’ aft the Injunction are purchases made disconnected the Apple platform, but from which a user tin permission the level utilizing a nexus connected the app. Now, nether the revised Guidelines, Apple not lone charges developers ‘a 27% commission,’ but besides expanded the scope of the committee request by demanding a 27% committee connected integer goods and services transactions that instrumentality spot connected a developer’s website upon contiguous usage of the link, and outgo for immoderate ‘digital goods and services transactions that instrumentality spot connected a developer’s website wrong 7 days aft a idiosyncratic taps done an External Purchase Link … to an outer website.’ … Apple hid its decision-making process from the Court lone to person it uncovered astatine the 2nd evidentiary proceeding successful 2025.”

…

“Apple coded its activities relating to Injunction compliance arsenic ‘Project Michigan’ … When the Ninth Circuit issued its enactment of the Injunction connected December 8, 2021 (Dkt. No. 841), Apple appears to person ceased immoderate compliance efforts.”

Apple knew it wasn’t complying with the injunction

“Despite the information that the Court present has grounds that Apple investigated the landscape, knew however it would harm developers, and understood it would not comply with the extremity of the Injunction, Apple nevertheless determined astatine the June 20, 2023 gathering that it would complaint a committee connected link-out purchases, though it had not yet decided what that committee would be … Apple’s cognition and information of these issues was hidden from the Court and not revealed until the 2025 hearing.”

Judge says VP of concern Alex Roman lied nether oath

“The grounds of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He adjacent went truthful acold arsenic to attest that Apple did not look astatine comparables to estimation the costs of alternate outgo solutions that developers would request to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”

…

“Mr. Roman did not halt there, however. He besides testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had nary thought what interest it would enforce connected linked-out purchases:

Q. And I instrumentality it that Apple decided to enforce a 27 percent interest connected linked purchases anterior to January 16, 2024, correct?

A. The determination was made that day.

Q. It’s your grounds that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had nary thought what interest it’s going to enforce connected linked purchases?

A. That is correct.”

“Another prevarication nether oath: contemporaneous concern documents uncover that connected the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined successful July 2023.

Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, present obvious, lies. They did not question to retreat the grounds oregon to person it stricken (although Apple did petition that the Court onslaught different testimony). Thus, Apple volition beryllium held to person adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”

Apple made its Scare Screens adjacent scarier

“Apple deployed a informing message, referred to arsenic a ‘scare screen,’ to deter users from utilizing third-party outgo options.”

…

“The surface connected the close is called a ‘sheet,’ which is simply a afloat surface takeover aft the idiosyncratic clicks connected an external
link. Moving near to right, the informing level to the idiosyncratic increases. Again, Apple chose the astir anticompetitive option, namely the afloat surface takeover.”

…

“Again, Apple decided connected the astir anticompetitive option, that is, the ‘even worse’ enactment of including the developer’s sanction alternatively than the app name. All of this was hidden from the Court and not revealed successful the May 2024 evidentiary hearings.”

“Few developers signed up for the nexus entitlement programme (external acquisition links).”

“As of the May 2024 hearing, lone 34 developers retired of the astir 136,000 full developers connected the App Store applied for the program, and seventeen of those developers had not offered in-app purchases successful the archetypal place. In May 2024, Apple argued that it would instrumentality much clip for developers to instrumentality vantage of the Link Entitlement and that the adoption rates could not beryllium known. Apple attempted present to mislead.”

The tribunal thinks Apple violated the missive and tone of the injunction

“There are respective issues with Apple’s argument. First, it is ludicrous to expect immoderate tribunal to repetition the contents of a 180-page bid issued successful conjunction with a simultaneously issued one-paragraph injunction. The second flows from the former. To suggest different strains credulity. Second, adjacent constricted to the 4 corners of the Injunction, Apple violated the literal text. Third, contrary to Apple’s position, different courts wrong this and different circuits volition look to the tone of the injunction erstwhile a litigant applies a dubiously literal mentation of the injunction, peculiarly wherever that mentation is designed to evade the injunction’s goals.”

…

“In short, Apple’s behaviour lacks immoderate justification: it does not comport with the substance of the Injunction, requires a strained and questionable mentation of that language, wholly ignores this Court’s 180-page Injunction and the Ninth Circuit’s 91-page opinion, and prompted lies connected the witnesser stand. The instrumentality requires that Apple beryllium connected announcement of the scope of permissible behaviour to clasp Apple successful civilian contempt.”

The tribunal says the requirements for link-out transactions weren’t justified

“Apple’s justifications for these requirements (set distant above) strain credulity. Most notably, and to underscore Apple’s meritless justifications, Apple does not necessitate developers selling carnal goods to use for a nexus entitlement earlier deploying link-out transactions. Apple imposes these restrictions lone for link-outs that vie with IAP.”

The tribunal holds Apple successful contempt

“Apple’s behaviour violates the Injunction. The non-compliance was acold from ‘technical oregon de minimis.’ Apple’s deficiency of capable justification, cognition of the economical non-viability of its compliance program, motive to support its amerciable gross watercourse and institute a caller de facto anticompetitive structure, and past make a reverse-engineered justification to proffer to the Court cannot, successful immoderate universe, existent oregon virtual, beryllium viewed arsenic merchandise of bully religion oregon a tenable mentation of the Court’s orders. The Court HOLDS Apple successful civilian contempt. Sanctions and alleviation with respect to Apple’s noncompliance are acceptable distant infra Section IV.”

…

“Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did truthful with the explicit intent to make caller anticompetitive barriers which would, by plan and successful effect, support a valued gross stream; a gross watercourse antecedently recovered to beryllium anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate specified insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the coverup made it worse. For this Court, determination is nary 2nd wound astatine the apple.”