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

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is pissed off at Apple. Really, really pissed off.

In Rogers’ newly released 80-page decision, she took Apple and its executives to task for defying the court’s orders in its original case with Fortnite maker Epic Games. Though Apple largely won that round, as it was determined the tech giant was not a monopolist, the court decided that Apple was behaving in an anticompetitive fashion in one specific area: by not allowing app developers to offer their customers other ways to pay outside of Apple’s own payment platform.

The judge ruled that developers should be able to link to other ways to make purchases from inside their apps, so they could process payments via their own website and payment systems. In doing so, developers should have been able to forgo paying Apple’s 30% commission on in-app purchases.

Apple, however, made it even more onerous for any developers who chose this option. It only dropped its commission to 27% for these outside purchases and added “scare screens”: warnings to dissuade customers who may have been tempted to go the route of outside purchases. With only a 3% discount off Apple’s original commission, this method could end up costing developers even more when their own payment processing fees were taken into consideration.

As a result, Apple protected its lucrative App Store business model at the expense of its reputation, its relationship with the iOS developer community, and its good standing in the eyes of the law.

In Rogers’ decision, it’s clear she’s had enough of Apple’s tactics, and the ruling is full of juicy tidbits where she clearly expresses so.

Apple responded to the court’s ruling with the following statement: “We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court’s order and we will appeal.”

If you don’t have time to read all 80 pages yourself, we’ve rounded up some of the best bits below. (Emphasis is ours).

Judge calls out Apple for attempting to route around her original orders

“Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up (the 2024 evidentiary hearing).”

Judge accuses Apple of being even more anticompetitive and lying under oath

“In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath.“

“Cook chose poorly”: Judge slams CEO Tim Cook for listening to CFO’s advice

“Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly … The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate.”

…

“As Mr. Schiller was not advocating for a commission, and Mr. Maestri was fully advocating for the lucrative approach, Mr. Cook was the tie-breaker.”

(Anyone notice that Maestri isn’t at Apple anymore, by the way?)

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation”: judge says Apple is to comply now

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases.”

Judge says Apple delayed proceedings to protect its profits

“Apple engaged in tactics to delay the proceedings. The Court later concluded that delay equaled profits.”

“… Ultimately, Epic and Apple hired three special masters to review Apple’s privilege claims after its re-review. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1191.) Apple’s production positions, after its dissembling at the evidentiary hearing, revealed that delay worked to its advantage.”

…

“THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Apple’s abuse of attorney-client privilege designations to delay proceedings and obscure its decision-making process warrants sanction to deter future misconduct. Apple is SANCTIONED in the amount of the full cost of the special masters’ review and Epic’s attorneys’ fees on this issue alone through approximately May 15, 2025, the anticipated date of completion. The parties shall meet and confer on the actual amount due.”

Apple hid its decision-making from the court

“In its most simple configuration, ‘linked-out purchases’ after the Injunction are purchases made off the Apple platform, but from which a consumer can leave the platform using a link on the app. Now, under the revised Guidelines, Apple not only charges developers ‘a 27% commission,’ but also expanded the scope of the commission requirement by demanding a 27% commission on digital goods and services transactions that take place on a developer’s website upon immediate use of the link, and payment for any ‘digital goods and services transactions that take place on a developer’s website within seven days after a user taps through an External Purchase Link . . . to an external website.’ … Apple hid its decision-making process from the Court only to have it uncovered at the second evidentiary hearing in 2025.”

…

“Apple coded its activities relating to Injunction compliance as ‘Project Michigan‘ … When the Ninth Circuit issued its stay of the Injunction on December 8, 2021 (Dkt. No. 841), Apple appears to have ceased any compliance efforts.”

Apple knew it wasn’t complying with the injunction

“Despite the fact that the Court now has evidence that Apple investigated the landscape, knew how it would harm developers, and understood it would not comply with the goal of the Injunction, Apple nonetheless determined at the June 20, 2023 meeting that it would charge a commission on link-out purchases, although it had not yet decided what that commission would be … Apple’s knowledge and consideration of these issues was hidden from the Court and not revealed until the 2025 hearing.”

Judge says VP of Finance Alex Roman lied under oath

“The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”

…

“Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:

Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?

A. The decision was made that day.

Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what — what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?

A. That is correct.”

“Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.

Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”

Apple made its Scare Screens even scarier

“Apple deployed a warning message, referred to as a ‘scare screen,’ to deter users from using third-party payment options.”

…

“The screen on the right is called a ‘sheet,’ which is a full screen takeover after the user clicks on an external
link. Moving left to right, the warning level to the user increases. Again, Apple chose the most anticompetitive option, namely the full screen takeover.”

…

“Again, Apple decided on the most anticompetitive option, that is, the ‘even worse’ option of including the developer’s name rather than the app name. All of this was hidden from the Court and not revealed in the May 2024 evidentiary hearings.”

“Few developers signed up for the link entitlement program (external purchase links).”

“As of the May 2024 hearing, only 34 developers out of the approximately 136,000 total developers on the App Store applied for the program, and seventeen of those developers had not offered in-app purchases in the first place. In May 2024, Apple argued that it would take more time for developers to take advantage of the Link Entitlement and that the adoption rates could not be known. Apple attempted here to mislead.“

The court thinks Apple violated the letter and spirit of the injunction

“There are several issues with Apple’s argument. First, it is ludicrous to expect any court to repeat the contents of a 180-page order issued in conjunction with a simultaneously issued one-paragraph injunction. The latter flows from the former. To suggest otherwise strains credulity. Second, even limited to the four corners of the Injunction, Apple violated the literal text. Third, contrary to Apple’s position, other courts within this and other circuits will look to the spirit of the injunction when a litigant applies a dubiously literal interpretation of the injunction, particularly where that interpretation is designed to evade the injunction’s goals.”

…

“In short, Apple’s conduct lacks any justification: it does not comport with the text of the Injunction, requires a strained and questionable interpretation of that language, completely ignores this Court’s 180-page Injunction and the Ninth Circuit’s 91-page opinion, and prompted lies on the witness stand. The law requires that Apple be on notice of the scope of permissible conduct to hold Apple in civil contempt.”

The court says the requirements for link-out transactions weren’t justified

“Apple’s justifications for these requirements (set forth above) strain credulity. Most notably, and to underscore Apple’s meritless justifications, Apple does not require developers selling physical goods to apply for a link entitlement before deploying link-out transactions. Apple imposes these restrictions only for link-outs that compete with IAP.”

The court holds Apple in contempt

“Apple’s conduct violates the Injunction. The non-compliance was far from ‘technical or de minimis.’ Apple’s lack of adequate justification, knowledge of the economic non-viability of its compliance program, motive to protect its illegal revenue stream and institute a new de facto anticompetitive structure, and then create a reverse-engineered justification to proffer to the Court cannot, in any universe, real or virtual, be viewed as product of good faith or a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s orders. The Court HOLDS Apple in civil contempt. Sanctions and relief with respect to Apple’s noncompliance are set forth infra Section IV.”

…

“Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the coverup made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.”