Court Bans Apple From Taking Commission on Web Purchases in Major Win for Developers

A federal judge has found the company in "willful violation" of a 2021 injunction related to its App Store practices and stating that Apple's "continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated." The ruling comes from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games.

In a detailed 80-page order, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concluded that Apple's plan to comply with the original anti-steering injunction was insufficient and anticompetitive. "Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity," the judge wrote, finding that the company, despite knowing its obligations, "thwarted the Injunction's goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream."

The court found Apple "knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option." This included introducing a new 27% commission on purchases made through external links originating from apps—a commission the judge described as "again tied to nothing"—where previously no fee existed. The court determined this new fee structure, combined with other restrictions, made alternatives to Apple's In-App Purchase system economically non-viable for developers.


Furthermore, the ruling criticized Apple's implementation of requirements Judge Rogers characterized as "new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates." These included restrictions on link placement, mandatory use of generic text templates instead of custom calls to action, a full-screen "scare screen" warning, and requiring static URLs that hinder seamless user experience. Testimony also revealed internal discussions about making warning language "scarier."

The judge noted that Apple's Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, "outright lied under oath" during testimony regarding the decision-making process, contradicting contemporaneous business documents. The court found Apple's later justifications, including reliance on an expert report, to be a "sham" and "entirely manufactured" after the compliance decisions were made.

As a result, the court held Apple in civil contempt and imposed immediate, stricter permanent restrictions. "This is an injunction, not a negotiation," Judge Rogers stated. Effective immediately, Apple Inc. and its officers and agents are permanently restrained and enjoined from:

1. Imposing any commission or any fee on purchases that consumers make outside an app, removing the basis for auditing or requiring developers to report such purchases.


2. Restricting or conditioning developers' style, language, formatting, quantity, flow or placement of links for purchases outside an app.

3. Prohibiting or limiting the use of buttons or other calls to action, or otherwise conditioning the content, style, language, formatting, flow or placement of these devices for purchases outside an app.

4. Excluding certain categories of apps and developers from obtaining link access.

5. Interfering with consumers' choice to proceed in or out of an app by using anything other than a neutral message apprising users that they are going to a third-party site (specifically authorizing a neutral "dialogue" box).

6. Restricting a developer's use of dynamic links that bring consumers to a specific product page in a logged-in state rather than to a statically defined page, including restrictions on passing product or user details necessary for the transaction.

Additionally, Judge Rogers sanctioned Apple monetarily for abuse of the attorney-client privilege process, ordering the company to pay the full cost of the special masters' review and Epic Games' related attorneys' fees. The court also referred Apple Inc. and Vice President Alex Roman to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate.

The court denied Apple's separate motion seeking to set aside the original 2021 judgment and denied Apple's motion for indemnification from Epic Games without prejudice, pending a more detailed accounting.

More developments are sure to follow this landmark ruling. Stay informed by downloading the iClarified app or following us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and RSS.