Apple’s Contempt Appeal Rejected in Epic Legal Battle

Apple has faced a significant setback in its ongoing antitrust dispute with Epic Games. The tech giant’s appeal against a district court ruling was rejected by a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling upholds a previous decision by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers from April.

Key Ruling Details

Judge Gonzalez Rogers concluded that Apple “willingly” did not comply with a 2021 order. This order allowed mobile app developers to link to alternative payment options outside of Apple’s ecosystem. Additionally, the ruling prohibited Apple from imposing commissions on in-app purchases that utilize these external payment links.

Contempt Findings Upheld

The appeals court panel confirmed Gonzalez Rogers’ findings of contempt against Apple. It mainly focused on Apple’s attempts to deter developers from using external payment methods. Some of Apple’s tactics included:

• Implementing a 27% fee for external payments
• Requiring developers to use plain text for links rather than buttons
• Displaying a fullscreen warning when users clicked on an external link

The court noted that Apple attempted to comply with the injunction but effectively prohibited developers from promoting external payment options without incurring significant fees.

Commission Limitations

While the appeals court agreed with most of the district court’s ruling, it found one area problematic. The complete ban on commissions for in-app purchases was deemed excessive. The panel suggested that a more reasonable approach would involve allowing Apple to charge fees on external link purchases.

The court characterized the district court’s decision as an overreach, stating:

“Rather than coercing Apple to comply with the spirit of the injunction with a reasonable, non-prohibitive commission, the district court used blunt force to ban all commissions.”

Recommendations for Future Actions

The appeals court provided recommendations for determining an appropriate commission structure. Key considerations include:

• Charging based on the necessary costs for coordinating external links
• Ensuring developers are not forced to make their options less attractive than Apple’s

Furthermore, while Apple can impose certain restrictions, these should not allow for more prominent positioning of its own payment options compared to those of external developers.

This ruling marks a crucial moment in Apple’s legal battles and could shape the future of app payment systems significantly. Developers and industry observers will be closely monitoring how Apple responds to this decision.