Judge Holds Apple in Contempt Over Anticompetitive App Store Practices

In a landmark 80-page ruling, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers expressed strong condemnation of Apple’s conduct following the court’s decision in the Epic Games lawsuit. While Apple was not found to be a monopolist, the court determined that Apple engaged in anticompetitive behavior by restricting app developers from offering alternative payment methods outside Apple’s own platform.

The injunction required Apple to allow developers to link to external payment options, enabling them to bypass Apple’s 30% commission on in-app purchases. However, Apple responded by imposing a 27% commission on these external transactions and introduced “scare screens” designed to dissuade users from using alternative payment methods. This approach not only undermined the court’s intent but also increased costs for developers when factoring in their own payment processing fees.

Judge Rogers highlighted Apple’s deliberate attempts to circumvent the injunction, stating that the company “thwarted the Injunction’s goals” to protect its revenue stream. She accused Apple executives, including CFO Luca Maestri and VP of Finance Alex Roman, of choosing the most anticompetitive options and even lying under oath. The judge criticized CEO Tim Cook for siding with the finance team over internal advice to comply with the court’s orders.

The court found that Apple delayed proceedings by abusing attorney-client privilege claims and obscuring its decision-making process, which ultimately benefited Apple financially. The company’s internal project, codenamed “Project Michigan,” was revealed to have ceased compliance efforts following a stay of the injunction, further demonstrating bad faith.

Apple’s “scare screens” were described as increasingly aggressive warnings that took over the user’s screen to discourage external purchases. The judge noted that very few developers opted into Apple’s external purchase link program, indicating the program’s economic non-viability and Apple’s success in deterring competition.

Ultimately, the court held Apple in civil contempt for willfully disregarding the injunction and creating new anticompetitive barriers to protect its revenue. The ruling emphasized that Apple’s conduct was not a matter of reasonable interpretation but a calculated effort to evade the court’s orders, accompanied by deception and delay tactics.

This case underscores the ongoing tension between platform owners and app developers over control and revenue sharing. It highlights the critical importance of regulatory oversight in ensuring fair competition and transparency in digital marketplaces. For developers and businesses, the ruling signals potential shifts in app store policies and payment processing options that could reshape the mobile app economy.

QuarkyByte continues to monitor these developments closely, providing actionable insights and expert analysis to help stakeholders navigate the complex regulatory landscape and adapt to evolving platform governance.