Apple Inc. is under fire, again, from a recent contempt conviction by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Today, the company is in a bit of a pickle. The ruling results from Apple’s failure to comply with a court injunction issued as part of the Epic Games court battle. That trial was originally determined all the way back in 2021. Quote: Apple’s repeated and pervasive violation of the order persuaded Judge Rogers to penalize Apple. By deciding to continue to charge commissions on purchases made through web links in its iPhone apps, the company risks massive financial repercussions.
In her favorable ruling, Judge Rogers instructed Apple to cease imposing a commission on external payments made through its applications. This decision is effective immediately. This ruling is an important turning point in this long running legal fight. It requires Apple to change its linking out policy to be consistent with California law. We applaud the judge’s ruling for reiterating the necessity of transparency and fairness in any digital marketplace.
“Apple imposed commissions on purchases made for iPhone apps through web links inside its apps,” said sources familiar with the case. The Epic Games trial brought this popular and controversial practice into the national spotlight. The court sought to address concerns about monopolistic power and consumer preference.
The judge’s findings went on to make a damning accusation against Apple. She actually filed a criminal referral. In it, she alleged that Apple’s representation to the court that it charges a 27% fee for external payments is intentionally misleading. It was particularly damaging when disclosed that a high-ranking Apple vice president had made sworn statements that Judge Rogers found to be falsehoods. This revelation has further complicated Apple’s legal standing and raised questions about the company’s practices.
In a statement, Apple confirmed its intention to appeal the ruling. CEO Tim Cook stated, “We’ve complied with the court’s order and we’re going to appeal.” Cook’s assertion underscores Apple’s commitment to contesting the ruling while maintaining that it has adhered to the original court’s directives.
According to Apple’s legal counsel, if allowed to stand, Judge Rogers’ ruling is unnecessarily punitive and will result in significant negative impact on Apple’s business practices. They assert that “non-party developers are already seizing upon the Order to reduce consumer choice (and damage Apple’s business) by, among other things, impeding the use of” their platforms effectively. This perspective highlights Apple’s concern about potential repercussions on its business model as third-party developers navigate the new landscape created by the court’s decision.
The controversy surrounding Apple’s practices has drawn considerable attention in the tech industry, especially as the company recently updated an app to include an orange “Get Book” button that links directly to Amazon’s website. This action seems to fulfill the order from the court and shows Apple’s efforts to comply, though now under the wary eye of the courts.
Legal experts note that this case is just one chapter in Epic Games’ ongoing efforts to challenge Apple’s App Store practices through competition law. Apple contends that “this is the latest chapter in Epic’s largely unsuccessful effort to use competition law to change how Apple runs the App Store.” The rivalry between Epic Games and Apple reflects broader tensions in the tech sector over control and distribution of digital content.