Latest News U.S. Federal Judge and Epic Games contest whether Apple has complied with the an Order to allow the use of payment steering -
A hearing on the evidence in the Epic Games v. Apple case will determine the question of whether Apple has truly complied with the U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' order to allow app developers to "steer" users to payment alternatives from third parties outside of the app's native App Store.
The evidentiary hearing regarding Apple's subsequent compliance began on the 8th of May. AP is reporting that Judge Gonzalez Rogers " questioned whether Apple had set up a gauntlet of exasperating obstacles to discourage the use of alternative payment methods for iPhone applications," in spite of the court's order.
Hearing focused on whether Apple Policy Doesn't Change.
The AP report further states that Judge Gonzalez Rogers' tone suggested the Apple's approach has been primarily focussed on preserving Apple's profits, rather than complying with the intended outcome of her ruling to permit steering, and improve iPhone users' ability to easily switch to other available payment methods in the app. The report reveals that, according to Epic reports, Apple is still blocking users from steering them to alternative payment options that offer lower pricing alternatives.
The AP report continues to say that, in the course of the hearing, the Apple executive over the iPhone App Store, Matthew Fischer, disclosed that Apple had only accepted approval for applications to use 38 apps to display hyperlinks to payment platforms, "a fraction of the approximately two million iPhone applications available within the U.S."
PC Mag points out that the low number of applications 38 of 65,000 app creators who offer in-app purchasesit is most likely due to the cost because the 27% Apple charge plus the expense of credit card charges could result in higher overall cost to developers.
Apple Executive 'Unaware' of the higher overall cost issue
A LAW360 story that ran on Friday, May 10 details the day's events when Epic lawyer Yonatan Even and Judge Gonzalez Rogers questioned Apple Finance Vice President Alex Roman. Even pointed out the 3% lower fee from Apple that is 27 percent for transactions that take place without an app installed on Apple devices, in contrast to its usual in-app 30% fee -- and Epic also provided evidence that the typical cost of processing payments across the U.S. is 3.5%, with a yoga app CEO who testified that he pays 3.5 percent to 6.5 fee for payments processing. Following that, Roman claimed that he wasn't aware of the fact, Even reiterated that the purpose was to establish the fee to allow the developers to provide users with a lower price. They asked Roman whether he was aware of the significance of that. The judge Gonzalez Rogers is quoted as stating to Roman that "'It appears that you took a lot of decisions based on little or no information or information,' she stated. "It seems to me like the intention was to keep ... your revenue you earned in the past.'" Access the LAW360 article here.
We are pleased to see the Judge's Side with Epic
Chief Executive Officer David Nachman states that "We're happy to see that the judge agree with Epic with respect to this dispute We're hoping that the court will require Apple to permit steering for app and game developers without fees and unnecessary limits. Its aim is to make it easier for the global marketplace for software and digital products companies. we join our clients in celebrating the progress towards free commerce on mobile."
Additional Antitrust Action Against Apple It was initiated by the US Justice Department
In addition to the Epic Games case, the U.S. Justice Department launched an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in March 2024, alleging that Apple holds monopoly control over the mobile market, and this includes (among many others) on the subject of digital payments.