Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchases, rules judge in Epic v. Apple

[JohnsonUT]

Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchase, rules judge in Epic v. Apple

The app store model on trial.

www.theverge.com

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a permanent injunction in the Epic v. Apple case on Friday morning, putting new restrictions on Apple's App Store rules and bringing months of bitter legal jousting to a conclusion.

Under the new order, Apple is:

permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

Click to shrink...

In short, iOS apps must be allowed to direct users to payment options beyond those offered by Apple. The injunction is scheduled to take effect in 90 days — on December 9th — unless it is enjoined by a higher court.

"THE COURT CANNOT ULTIMATELY CONCLUDE THAT APPLE IS A MONOPOLIST UNDER EITHER FEDERAL OR STATE ANTITRUST LAWS"
In a separate judgment, the court affirmed that Epic Games was in breach of its contract with Apple when it implemented the alternative payment system in the Fortnite app. As a result, Epic must pay Apple 30 percent of all revenue collected through the system since it was implemented — a sum of more than $3.5 million.

Click to shrink...

In the full ruling, Judge Gonzalez Rogers explained her thinking on the issue in greater detail. Notably, the judge rejected both parties' definition of the marketplace at issue in the case. "The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple's own internal operating systems related to the App Store," Gonzalez Rogers wrote.

Under that market definition, "the court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws," she continued. "Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California's competition laws."

Click to shrink...

 

[Lishi]

Great news, even if someone will try to put it on a bad light.

 

[Primus]

Court issues permanent injunction in regards to anti-steering rules in Epic v. Apple case News

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22662320/epic-apple-ruling-injunction-judge-court-app-store?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

www.resetera.com