Julie Clover
in the victory for Epic Games, Apple today, as was discovered, violates the lawsuit for 2021, which demanded that the developers allow the developers to direct customers to third -party purchases on the Internet using links in the appendix.
Judge Ivonn Gonzalez Rogers, who processes Apple vs. & zwnj; Epic Games & Zwnj; Over the past five years, the dispute has said that Apple has been in a “intentional violation” of the order that she issued to ban anti -competitive behavior and prices. “Apple’s ongoing attempts will not be allowed to intervene,” the decision says. In 2024, she accused Apple of violating the 2021 anti -library prohibition. Apple allowed the developers to invest one link into their applications, which leads to a website where customers can make a purchase without using the purchase system in the application, but Apple continued to charge a commission, demanding that the developers pay from 12 to 27 percent for purchases made using these links in the application. Answering the question that Apple is in contempt for the court for not fulfilling the order from the payment of the board and other strict rules related to the option of the only link available to the developers. Meanwhile, Apple claimed that it was fully consistent with the judicial prohibition, but the judge sided with & zwnj; Epic Games & Zwnj;. In fact, the solution is not at all favorable for Apple, emphasizing the brightness as Cupertino has not completed the order.
Summing up: first, after the trial, the court found that the 30 percent commission of Apple “allowed him to reap the supersaculating operating margins” and was not tied to the value of his intellectual property and, therefore, was anti -competitive. Apple's answer: charge a 27 percent commission (not to be connected again) for purchases outside the application, where she had previously charged anything and extended the commission within seven days after the consumer is connected with the application. Apple's goal: to maintain your anti -competitive flow of income. Apple's answer: to impose new barriers and new requirements for increasing friction and increasing the speed of breakdowns with a full page of “passing”, static URLs and general statements. Apple's goal: to dissuade the client about the use of the alternative possibilities of buying and maintaining his anti -competitive flow of income. Sudya Rogers said that the court “will not tolerate further delays”, and “Apple will not interfere with competition.” Apple should not interfere with the ability of developers to communicate with users or levy a new purchase commission outside the application. The decision comes into force immediately. Here are the terms that Apple should adhere to:
to charge any commission or any purchase fee that consumers make outside the application, and, as a result, no reason exists for audit, tracking, tracking or requirements of purchases or any other occupation that is lessons that are lessons. consumers are engaged outside the application; links for purchases outside the application; prohibition or restriction of the use of buttons or other challenges to action or otherwise determining content, style, language, formatting, stream or placement of these devices for purchases outside the application; The exclusion of certain categories of applications and developers from what can be obtained, what can be obtained without using the application for use in the application, without using the application for use in the application, without using the application for use in the appendix, not in choosing what can be found in the application. Neutral messages that users about whom they visit a third -party site; , limiting the use of the developer of dynamic links that bring consumers to a specific page of the product in a state of registration, and not to a statically defined page, including the restriction of applications from the transmission of products, user data or other information that refers to the user, intending to buy
