Information: U.S. Federal Judge and Epic Games Challenge Whether Apple is Compliant with Order to Allow Payment Steering -
An evidentiary hearing of the Epic Games v. Apple case will determine whether Apple really has complied with the U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' order to allow developers of apps to "steer" users to payment alternatives from third parties that are not available in the native App Store.
The hearing on Apple's subsequent compliance started on Wednesday, May 8. AP reports that Judge Gonzalez Rogers " questioned whether Apple had set up a gauntlet of exasperating hurdles to hinder from using other payment methods within iPhone apps," regardless of the court's directive.
Hearing focused on whether Apple Policy is Still Anti-Steering
The AP article further explains that the judge Gonzalez Rogers' tone suggested Apple's actions have been focussed on preserving Apple's earnings, instead of submitting with the purpose of her order to allow steering and increase iPhone customers' ability to easily switch to other in-app payment options. The piece explains that according to Epic documents, Apple is still blocking the developers from directing consumers to other payment options with cheaper pricing choices.
The AP article continues that as part of the hearing, Apple chief executive of the iPhone App Store, Matthew Fischer revealed that Apple had only accepted and accepted applications for 38 apps that show links to other payment systems, "a fraction of the approximately 2 million iPhone apps that are available in the U.S."
PC Mag points out that the low number of applications (38 out of the 65,000 app developers who offer in-app purchasesit is most likely due to costs, since the 27 percentage Apple charge plus the expense of fees charged by credit cards would likely result in a higher overall cost to developers.
Apple Executive 'Unaware' of Higher Overall Cost Issue
An LAW360 article from Friday, May 10 details the day's events when Epic lawyer Yonatan Even and the judge Gonzalez Rogers questioned Apple Finance Vice President Alex Roman. Even suggested the 3% lower fee of Apple -- 27% for transactions taking place in an application that is not using Apple devices, as opposed to its usual in-app 30% fee -- as well as Epic has also presented evidence to show that the cost for payment services within the U.S. is 3.5% and a yoga application CEO testifying that he pays 3.5% to 6.5 percent fees for payment processing. Then, after Roman claimed that he wasn't aware of the fact, Even reiterated that the purpose was to establish the fee to allow companies to give users a better price by asking Roman whether he was aware of this. Judge Gonzalez Rogers is quoted as stating to Roman that "'It appears that you made lots of decisions with little or no information or information,' she stated. "It seems to me like the intention was to keep ... your revenue that you have had before.'" Access the LAW360 article here.
I'm glad to see Judge Side With Epic
Chief Executive Officer David Nachman states that "We're happy to see that the judge siding in favor of Epic in this exchange We're hoping that this court can order Apple to let steering be available to game and app developers without fees and unnecessary limits. Its aim is to make it easier for worldwide commerce for software as well as digital products companies. we join our clients in celebrating this step towards free commerce on mobile."
Additional Antitrust Affidavit Against Apple launched by US Justice Department
As well as being involved in the Epic Games case, the U.S. Justice Department launched an antitrust case against Apple in the month of March 2024, alleging that Apple is the sole monopoly in the mobile market, and this includes (among other things) in the area of electronic payment.