In a recent court ruling, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers expressed her frustration with a leading technology company, highlighting serious concerns regarding its business practices. The decision, spanning 80 pages, scrutinizes the company’s actions in relation to its App Store policies, particularly in the context of a high-profile legal battle with a popular game developer.
The court found that while the tech giant was not classified as a monopolist, it engaged in anticompetitive behavior by restricting app developers from offering alternative payment methods outside of its own payment system. This ruling emphasizes the need for developers to have the freedom to link to other payment options within their applications, allowing them to bypass the hefty commission fees typically charged by the company.
Despite the court’s ruling, the company implemented additional hurdles for developers opting for external payment methods. Instead of a significant reduction in commission fees, the company only lowered its cut to 27% and introduced warnings designed to deter users from choosing outside payment options. This minimal discount, when combined with the developers’ own payment processing costs, could lead to even higher expenses for them.
The implications of this ruling are profound, as the company appears to prioritize its profitable App Store model over its reputation and relationships with developers. The judge’s decision reflects a growing impatience with the company’s tactics, revealing a series of critical observations throughout the ruling.
In response to the court’s findings, the company issued a statement expressing its disagreement with the ruling, indicating plans to comply while also pursuing an appeal.
For those who may not have the time to delve into the full 80-page document, we have compiled some of the most significant excerpts that illustrate the court’s stance.
“The company’s response to the injunction is hard to believe. After extensive hearings, it became clear that the company, fully aware of its obligations, continued its anticompetitive practices solely to protect its revenue. The court noted that the company seemed to think it could deceive the court without consequence.”
“Contrary to the company’s initial testimony, internal documents revealed that it was fully aware of its actions and consistently chose the most anticompetitive options available. Notably, a senior executive provided misleading testimony under oath.”
“While one executive advocated for compliance with the injunction, the CEO ignored this advice, allowing financial executives to persuade him otherwise. This decision has now been referred to the U.S. Attorney for potential criminal contempt proceedings.”
“This is an injunction, not a negotiation. The court will not tolerate any further delays or attempts to undermine competition. The company is ordered to cease any new anticompetitive actions immediately.”
“The court found that the company engaged in tactics to prolong the proceedings, equating delay with profit.”
“The court further determined that the company’s misuse of legal privilege to obstruct the process warrants sanctions, including covering the costs of the special masters involved in the review.”
“The revised guidelines now impose a commission on purchases made outside the company’s platform, further complicating the situation for developers.”
“The company’s internal project aimed at compliance was seemingly abandoned once the court issued its stay on the injunction.”
“Despite evidence showing the company understood the negative impact on developers, it still decided to impose a commission on external purchases, hiding this decision from the court until later hearings.”
“The testimony provided by the financial executive was filled with inconsistencies and falsehoods, revealing a lack of transparency in the company’s decision-making process.”
“The company deployed a warning message to discourage users from utilizing third-party payment options, further demonstrating its anticompetitive approach.”
“As of the latest hearings, only a small fraction of developers had signed up for the external purchase program, raising questions about the company’s claims regarding adoption rates.”
“In summary, the company’s actions lack justification and violate the court’s injunction. The court holds the company in civil contempt, emphasizing that its attempts to create new barriers to competition are unacceptable.”
“The company’s willful noncompliance with the court’s orders reflects a serious miscalculation, and the cover-up of its actions has only exacerbated the situation. The court has made it clear that there will be no second chances.”