I am going to just post it here and will try to find good articles on this judgement but
What we learned from the Epic v. Apple ruling - Protocol — The people, power and politics of tech
She has ruled against the anti-steering rules in the app store. She did give Epic an order to pay $4m though.
Under the new order, Apple is:
- permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
In the full ruling, Judge Gonzalez-Rogers explained her thinking on the issue in greater detail.
Notably, the judge rejected both parties’ definition of the marketplace at issue in the case. “The relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store,” Gonzalez-Rogers wrote.
Under that market definition, “the court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she continued. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.”
What we learned from the Epic v. Apple ruling - Protocol — The people, power and politics of tech
She has ruled against the anti-steering rules in the app store. She did give Epic an order to pay $4m though.
Last edited: