Apple Held in Contempt for Defying App Store Ruling

Apple Held in Contempt for Defying App Store Ruling

A judge has found Apple in contempt of court for its actions following the initial ruling in the Epic Games antitrust case. The 80-page decision details how Apple defied court orders and engaged in anti-competitive practices to protect its App Store revenue.

The court originally ordered Apple to allow developers to link to external payment options, bypassing Apple's 30% commission. However, Apple implemented a system that offered only a minimal discount and included "scare screens" to discourage users from using external payment methods.

Judge Criticizes Apple's Conduct

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers strongly criticized Apple's actions, accusing the company of a "cover-up" and stating that Apple "thwarted the Injunction's goals." The judge also accused former Apple VP of Finance Alex Roman of lying under oath and criticized CEO Tim Cook for prioritizing financial gains over compliance.

Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity...Apple believed this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up.

The judge referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney's office for potential criminal contempt proceedings.

Key Findings and Accusations

• Apple implemented a 27% commission on external purchases, making it financially unattractive for developers.
• Apple used "scare screens" to dissuade users from external payment options.
• Apple executives, including Alex Roman, allegedly lied under oath.
• Tim Cook prioritized financial advice over compliance recommendations.
• Apple hid its decision-making process from the court.
• Apple delayed proceedings to maximize profits.

Court's Response and Sanctions

The court held Apple in civil contempt and imposed sanctions, including covering the costs of a special master's review and Epic Games' legal fees. The judge ordered Apple to immediately cease impeding developers' communication with users and levying commissions on off-app purchases.

This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order.

Apple responded by stating its strong disagreement with the decision and its intent to appeal.

This ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle surrounding Apple's App Store practices and its control over in-app payments. The case continues to have major implications for app developers and the future of mobile app ecosystems.