Read the juiciest bits from the court ruling against Apple over its anticompetitive App Store practices

Judge Yovon Gonzalez Rogers disappointed Apple. In fact, Truly Disappointed

He worked to deny the court order of Apple and its authorities in the newly released Rogers’ decision on Rogers. Fortnite Maker is the original case with Epic GamesThe Although Apple originally won this round, because it was determined that the technology giant was not exclusive, the court decided that Apple was behaving in an antimomtim fashion in a certain region: App developers did not supply other ways to pay their customers out of their own payment platform.

The judge ruled that developers should be able to link to other ways to shop from inside their applications, so that they can process their own website and payment system through the payment system. By doing this, the developers should have been able to quit providing 30% of Apple’s commission to purchase in-app.

Apple, however, has made it even more rigorous for any developers that choose this option. It has just dropped its commission to 22% for the outdoor purchase and added the “horrible screen”: alert to displeasure customers who could be tempted to go out of purchase. This method can end more expensive developers when Apple’s main commission is only with 3% discount, when the processing fee of their own payment is taken into consideration.

As a result, Apple secured its profitable App Store business model by spending its reputation, its relationship with the iOS developed community and its good position in the law.

In the decision of Rogers, it is clear that Apple’s strategies to him were enough and the verdict was full of juicy tides where he clearly revealed it.

Apple responded to the court verdict in the following statement: “We do not strongly agree with the decision. We will accept the court order and we will apply.”

If you do not have time to read all 80 pages itself, we have scored a few of the best bits below. (To emphasize us).

Judge Apple called for trying to turn his original order

“Apple’s response to the prohibition of order stem credibility Will not see through the obvious cover-up (2024 clearly hearing). “

The judge complained to Apple more anticipative and lied under oath

“In contrast to Apple’s primary court testimony, contemporary business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what he was doing and chose the most anti-alternative at each time. To hide the truth, the Vice-President of Money Alex Roman, Fullly under the oath.“

“Cook chosen badly”: CEO COM CEO CEO of Judge Slam to listen to CFO’s advice

“Internally, Philip Shila advised that Apple obeyed the prohibition, but Tim ignored the Cook Shiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Mythry and his finance team to persuade him. Cook has chosen badly … The court has mentioned the issue as a US attorney for the northern district of California to investigate whether the criminal disregarding activities are suitable. “

…

“Since Mr. Shola was not in favor of the Commission, and Mr. Mythry was fully suggesting for the profitable method, Mr. Cook was a tie-breaker.”

(Notice that anyone is no longer in Apple, anyway?)

“This is an order is forbidden, not the discussion”: the judge says Apple has to obey Now

“This is an order ban, not discussion. Once a party will deliberately ignore the order of the court, there is no work-over. Summary of time. The court will not tolerate further delay. In accordance with the previous order, Apple will not hinder the competition. The court instructed Apple to implement its new anticipative laws to avoid consent with the order of order. Effective immediately Apple and developers will not hinder the ability to communicate with users, or they will not impose new commissions on the purchase of off-applications. “

The judge says that Apple has delayed the activities to protect its profits

“Apple is involved in executive delay strategies. The court later reached the conclusion that the delay was equal to the profit.”

“… ended, Epic and Apple appointed three Special Masters to review Apple’s privilege claims after re -reviewing it. (See, for example, Dr.

…

“The court also discovered that to delay the abuse of Apple’s Attorney-Client’s privileges to delay the abuse of the privileged and to obscure the process of decision-making Authorization of warrants to prevent future misconductThe Apple has been approved by the full expenditure of special Master’s Review and Epic attorns in this issue alone within the expected date of the completion, within May 15, 2025. The parties will be combined with the actual amount and will provide. “

Apple has hidden his decision -making from the court

“In its most common configuration, the ‘Linked-out purchase’ after the ban ‘Apple platform is closed, from there you can leave the platform using a link to the app. Now, under the revised guidelines, Apple does not accept a 27% of the Commission for the Commission for the Commission for the Commission for the Commission. It also enhances the commission’s’ Digital products and services on an external purchase. Apple has hidden the process of his decision -making It was unveiled in the second clear hearing from the court in 2021. “

…

“Apple has code coded its activities related to the prohibition of prohibition ‘Project Michigan“… when the ninth circuit issued the suspension of the ban on December 7, 2021 (DK 1), Apple seems to have stopped any consent effort. “

Apple knew that it was not agreed with the order ban

“The court now has evidence that Apple has investigated the landscape, knowing how it would harm the developers, and it would not be followed by the order of the order, Apple will charge a commission on the purchase of link-out at the meeting on June 27, 2021, even though it has not yet decided that the Commission’s knowledge and considering … Apple will consider … Apple. Was hidden from the court And not published until the 2025 hearing. “

Judge says Finance VP Alex lied under the Roman oath

“The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Money, Was full of wrong directions and full liesThe He even went on to testify so far that Apple did not pay relatively to determine the cost of alternative payment solutions that the developers need to be collected for link-sacrifice. “

…

“Mr. Roman did not stop there, but he testified that Apple had no idea until January 1, 2021, the key fees on the link-out purchase:

Q. And I accept it that Apple decided to impose 27 percent fee on a link to links before 2024, didn’t it?

A. The decision was made that day.

Q. It is your testimony that Apple had no idea until 2024 – what fees would it impose on the linked purchase?

A. It’s right. “

“Lie down to the bottom of another oath: Conversely business documents reveal that the main components of Apple’s plan, including 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.

Apple, or its advice, has not clearly corrected now. They did not try to withdraw the testimony or hurt it (though the Apple court had requested to hurt another testimony). Thus, Apple will be held in this court that false and wrong presentation will be held. “

Apple has made her awesome screens even dreadful

“Apple has deployed a warning message referred to as a ‘horrible screen’ to prevent users from using third party payment options.”

…

“The screen is called a ‘sheet’ on the right, which the user has a complete screen -tackover after clicking an external
Link. From left to right, the alert level to the user increases. Again, Apple has chosen the most anticipative option, namely the entire screen takover “”

…

“Once again Apple has decided on the most anticipative option, that is, the ‘worse’ option to include developers than the name of the app. All of this was hidden from the court and was not published in the clear hearing of May 2024.”

“Very low developer has signed up for link entitlement programs (outward purchase links).”

“As a hearing in May 2024, only 136,000 total developers were applied for the 34 developers, and in these developers did not offer seventeen applications to the first place. In May 2024, Apple argued that it would not take more time to take advantage of link entitlement and not. Apple tried to mislead here.“

The court thinks that Apple has violated the letter and consciousness of the order of the order

“There are several issues with Apple’s argument. First, it is ridiculous to expect that the contents issued simultaneously with a one-way order issued will be ridiculous. It is ridiculous. Otherwise to advise the credulatie to be the second, even limited to four corners of the order. Apple has literally violated the text. Thirdly, against Apple’s position, other courts between these and other circuits will look at the consciousness of the order when a case is designed to avoid the targets of the order of the order. “

…

“In short, Apple’s behavior lacks justice: It does not compare with the ban on the ban, a strained and questionable explanation of that language is to ban the 5 -page order and the ninth circuit fully ignored the opinion of the ninth circuit and falsely requested the Witness Stand. Apple should be in the notice for this opportunity.

The court has said that the requirements of link-out transactions were not equitable

“Apple’s justice for this requirement (described above) Strain credibility. Most significantly, and to underscore Apple’s qualified fair, developers do not require developers to sell physical products to apply for a link entitlement before deploying link-out transactions. Apple only imposes these restrictions for link-outs that compete with IAP ”

The court keeps the apple in disobedience

“Apple’s behavior violates the prohibition. Non-compassion was far from ‘technical or de minimis’. Apple’s lack of justified justice, knowledge of the economic non-skills of his consent program, protecting its illegal revenue and the purpose of establishing a new de facto anti-compliment structure and then to establish a reverse Court cannot be seen as a product of honest faith in any universe, real or virtual Or a reasonable explanation of the court order. The court retains Apple in civic disregard. The ban on Apple’s non -compliance and the relief is determined by the Infra Division IV. “

…

“Apple will not intentionally comply with the order of this court. It did it with it Express the intention of creating new anticipative barriers Which will maintain a valuable revenue flow by design and effectively; Previously found an earning flow as anticipative. It was thought that this court would tolerate such impressionity to count a serious mistake. As always, the coverup has made it worse. For this court, Apple has no second bite. “