In 2021, a significant federal ruling mandated that Apple must loosen its control over the App Store. Fast forward nearly four years, and the same judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, has found that Apple has not only failed to comply but has also attempted to conceal its noncompliance. In a scathing opinion, Judge Gonzalez Rogers has made it clear that Apple will not receive another chance to rectify its actions. Instead, she is demanding specific changes to the App Store, effectively tearing away Apple's tight grip after years of minor adjustments that failed to meet the court's directives.
The ruling stems from a legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, where Apple emerged victorious on most fronts. However, the court's order required Apple to allow developers to include links and buttons within their apps that direct users to alternative purchasing methods outside the App Store. This directive is commonly referred to as the “anti-steering injunction.” The vagueness of the injunction left a loophole, enabling Apple to continue charging developers a fee on sales made through the web, which it subsequently exploited.
As Apple assessed its compliance options, it was found to have intentionally selected an anticompetitive route “at every step.” According to internal meeting notes, Apple aimed to implement changes that would “limit the ruling” rather than fully comply. The court noted that Apple had several choices: eliminating its commission altogether but restricting link placements, charging developers based on app downloads, or creating a new commission structure for web purchases. However, the company ultimately settled on a strategy combining a reduced commission with extensive restrictions on where links could be placed.
Throughout the deliberations, Apple executives expressed varying opinions regarding the commission structure. While some suggested a reduction to 20 percent, Apple’s then-CFO Luca Maestri advocated for 27 percent. Despite internal dissent, CEO Tim Cook ultimately decided on the 27 percent commission rate, which the court deemed unjustified as it lacked a defensible rationale regarding the value of Apple's services.
Once the commission structure was decided, Apple turned its attention to how links and buttons would function within apps. Realizing that more prominent links would attract users, Apple sought to limit their visibility. The company considered various designs and eventually restricted links to plain text only. Moreover, Apple aimed to create a user experience that would deter users from clicking on these links. This led to the development of pop-up alerts and full-screen warnings, which included “scary” language to dissuade users.
Following the judge’s findings, it was concluded that Apple had deliberately chosen the least favorable options for developers, showing a blatant disregard for the court's orders. The ruling mandates that Apple must allow developers unrestricted use of links and buttons for sales purposes and prohibits the company from charging commissions on web purchases. Despite this, Apple spokesperson Olivia Dalton announced that the company plans to appeal the decision, insisting that they disagree with the court’s ruling.
This ruling marks a critical moment in the ongoing scrutiny of Apple's App Store policies and practices. As the tech giant faces mounting pressure to comply with the court's directives, developers and consumers alike are left to wonder how these changes will reshape the landscape of app distribution and monetization.
