The information: U.S. Federal Judge and Epic Games Challenge Whether Apple has complied with the The Order to Allow Payment Steering
An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for the Epic Games v. Apple case is following up on the question of whether Apple has truly complied to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' order that allowed app developers the ability of "steer" users toward alternative payment options outside the local App Store.
Hearings regarding the evidence for Apple's subsequent compliance began on May 8. AP is reporting the judge Gonzalez Rogers " questioned whether Apple had set up a range of unneeded barriers that hinder the use of alternative payments within iPhone apps," in spite of the court's directive.
Discussions focussed on the question of Apple Policy Is Still Anti-Steering
The AP article also notes that Judge Gonzalez Rogers' tone suggested the Apple's policy has been primarily focused on protecting Apple's own profits rather than ensuring that the approach is consistent with the intent of her ruling to permit steering and increase iPhone users' capability to easily switch to other payments in the app. The piece explains that in accordance with the Epic documents, Apple is still blocking customers from steering them to alternative payment options with less cost options.
The AP report continues to say that, as part of the hearing, Apple director of the iPhone App Store, Matthew Fischer stated that Apple had received and approved applications for 38 apps which display links to payment platforms, "a fraction of the around two million iPhone applications available within the U.S."
PC Mag points out that the number is a tiny fraction of apps 38 out of the 65,000 app developers that allow in-app purchases -it is most likely due to costs as the 27 percentage Apple charge plus the expense of credit card fee could result in more expensive total costs for developers of apps.
HTML0 Apple Executive 'Unaware' of the cost increase issue
The LAW360 article that ran on Friday, May 10 recounts that day's proceedings in which Epic lawyer Yonatan Even as well as the judge Gonzalez Rogers questioned Apple Finance Vice President Alex Roman. Even emphasized the lower cost of 3% that is offered by Apple -- 27% for transactions that take place within applications that are not available on Apple devices as compared to the usual $30 in-app fee and then Epic has also presented evidence to show that the average cost of payments across in the U.S. is 3.5% and a yoga app CEO stating that users pay 3.5 percent up to 6.5 percent fees for payments processing. After Roman declared that he wasn't conscious of the fact, Even reiterated that the purpose was to determine an amount which would enable developers to provide users with an affordable price. He asked Roman if he understood the significance of that. Judge Gonzalez Rogers is quoted as saying to Roman that "'It appears that you took lots of decisions with the absence of data,' she said. "It appears to me that the aim was to preserve ... your income that you have had before.'" Access the LAW360 report here.
Pleased to See The Judge's View with Epic
The CEO David Nachman states that "We're pleased to hear that the judge has sided with of Epic regarding the dispute. We're hopeful that this court can make it mandatory for Apple to permit steering for game and app developers, free of charge and with limits. 's mission is to democratize the global marketplace through digital and software firms. we're with our customers to be proud of this step towards open commerce in mobile devices."
Additional Antitrust Case Against Apple launched by US Justice Department
In addition to the Epic Games matter The U.S. Justice Department launched an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in the month of March 2024 in which it claimed that Apple is the sole monopoly of the smartphones market, which includes (among other things) regarding electronic payments.
More information about HTML0:
News from the field and the opinions of
More About
This post was posted on here