Court Rules Against Apple for Anticompetitive Practices
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a strong ruling against Apple for violating a 2021 court order concerning App Store anti-steering provisions. The court found that Apple's 30 percent commission was anticompetitive and that the company attempted to circumvent the injunction by imposing new fees and barriers for developers trying to direct users to alternative payment options. Despite internal disagreements, Apple executives, including CEO Tim Cook, chose to ignore advice to comply with the court's ruling, leading to accusations of willful misconduct. The judge's decision has significant implications for Apple's reputation and calls for better compliance with fair competition practices.
- Judge Gonzalez Rogers criticized Apple for failing to comply with a court order.
- Apple attempted to maintain its revenue stream through new anticompetitive measures.
- Internal conflicts within Apple about compliance were highlighted.
- The ruling could have serious consequences for Apple's credibility.
What was the main finding of the court regarding Apple's commission?
The court found that Apple's 30 percent commission was anticompetitive and not justified by the value of its intellectual property.
What actions did Apple take that led to this ruling?
Apple imposed new fees and barriers that discouraged developers from directing users to alternative purchasing options, violating the court's injunction.
How could this ruling affect Apple's reputation?
The ruling may damage Apple's credibility as it highlights the company's attempts to circumvent legal compliance and maintain anticompetitive practices.