Read the juiciest bits from the Apple-Epic court ruling

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is angry with Apple. Really, really angry.

In the newly published decision of Rogers, she took Apple and her executives to the task of defiance of the court commands in it Original case with Fortnite Maker epic games. Although Apple has largely won in this circle, as it was found that a technological giant was not a monopolist, the court decided that Apple should behave in one particular area in a competitive way: not allowing app developers to offer other payment methods outside the Apple Payment Payment.

The judge ruled that developers should be able to connect with other ways of shopping from their applications so that they could process payments through their own websites and pay systems. In doing so, developers were supposed to give up the Payment of Apple 30% of the purchase commission via app.

Apple, however, made it even more tiring for all the developers who chose this possibility. He only lowered his commission to 27% for these external purchases and added “scary screens”: warnings to discourage customers who may have been tempted to go on the path of the external purchase. With only 3% discount from Apple’s original commission, this method could finish the developers even more when they were taken into account by their own payment processing fees.

As a result, Apple has protected its lucrative business model of applications to the detriment of its reputation, relationship with the IOS programmer community and a good position in the eyes of the law.

In Rogers’ decision it is clear that she had enough Apple tactics, and the verdict is full of juicy little things where she clearly expresses it.

Apple responded to the judgment of the court with the following statement: “We clearly disagree with the decision. We will adhere to the court order and we will complain.”

If you do not have time to read all 80 pages yourself, we have rounded up some of the best bits below. (Emphasis is ours).

Judge calls Apple to attempt to direct their original commands

“Apple’s response to the prohibition is progressing. After two set of evidentiary hearing, the truth appeared. Apple, despite her knowledge of her obligations, abolished the prohibition goals and continued his anti -concnity behavior only to maintain his income. Apple believed that this court believed that this court would not see through his obvious cover -up (Proven hearing 2024). “

The judge accuses Apple that she was even more competitive and lying under the oath

“In contrast to Apple’s initial testimony in the body, contemporary business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what he was doing and at every turn he chose the most concise option. To hide the truth, Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman, He was directly lying under the oath.“

“Cook is badly chosen”: Executive Director of Judge Slams Tim Cook to Listen to CFO Tips Council

“Inner Phillip Schiller advocated that Apple respects the ban, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Luca Maestr’s Chief CEO and his financial team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose badly … The court refers to this to the United States lawyer for the northern district of California to investigate whether the criminal disrespect procedure is appropriate. “

…

“As Mr. Schiller did not advocate for the committee, and Mr. Maestro completely advocated for lucrative approach, Mr. Cook was a switch.”

(By the way, he noticed that Maestro is no longer in Apple?)

“This is a ban, not a negotiation”: the judge says that Apple should adhere to now

“This is a ban, not a negotiation. There are no advantages after the party intentionally neglects the court order. It’s time from essence. The court will not tolerate further delays. As ordered earlier, Apple will not interfere with the competition. The court enjoys Apple from the implementation of its new anticonic works to avoid respect for the prohibition. In force, Apple will no longer interfere with the possibility of a developer to communicate with users, nor will they impose or impose a new commission to buy outside the app. “

Judge says Apple delayed the procedure to protect his profit

“Apple dealt with tactics to delay the proceedings. The court later concluded that the delay equalized the profit.”

“… In the end, Epic and Apple hired three special masters for the review of Apple’s privileges after his re -examination. (See, for example, DKT. No. 1191), Apple’s production position, after separating at a evidence, revealed that the delay acted in his favor.”

…

“The court further reveals that Apple’s abuse of privilege of lawyer-Klijent privilege is to delay the procedure and darken his decision-making procedure requires a sanction to distract future misconduct. Apple was sanctioned in the amount of full cost to review special masters and the EPIC lawsuit compensation on this issue only until May 15, 2025, the ended date of the completion. The parties meet and assign the actual amount. “

Apple hid his decision -making from the court

“In their simplest configuration,” related purchases “after the prohibition were made from the Apple platform, but from which the consumer may leave the platform using the application on the application. Now, according to the revised guidelines, Apple not only charges developers for development commissions, “but also expanded the scope of the financing and developing of the Commission available to the digital commission at the digital commission, and the digital goods commission within 27%, and commissions on the digital commodity” goods and services that take place on the website for development developers within seven days after it is on the outside website. “… Apple hid his decision -making procedure From the court only to have discovered it at the second evidentiary hearing 2025. “

…

“Apple has coded its activities related to compliance with prohibition as ‘Michigan project“… When the ninth round issued a ban on the ban on December 8, 2021 (Dkt. No. 841), Apple seems to have stopped any efforts for compliance.”

Apple knew that not in accordance with the prohibition

“Despite the fact that the court now has evidence that Apple explored the landscape, he knew he would hurt the developers and realized that he would not be in line with the aim of the prohibition, Apple still determined at the meeting of June 20, 2023 that he would collect the connection commission, although it had not yet decided what the commission would be … Apple’s knowledge and considerations of these questions. was hidden from court And it was not discovered until he heard 2025. “

Judge says VP for Finance Alex Roman lied under oath

“The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was full of misconceptions and direct lies. He even went so far that he testified that Apple did not look at comparisons to evaluate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers should get to make it easier to buy. “

…

“Mr. Roman, however, did not stop. He also testified that Apple had had no idea what he would impose on related purchases by January 16, 2024:

P. And I realize that Apple decided to impose a fee of 27 percent for related purchases before January 16, 2024, accurately?

A. The decision was made that day.

Q. Your testimony is that by January 16, 2024. Apple had no idea – which compensation will impose on related purchases?

A. That’s true. “

“Another lie under the oath: Modern business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of the Apple plan, including 27% of commission, were established in July 2023.

Neither Apple, nor his advisor, did not correct, now obviously, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or hit him (although Apple asked for the court to hit other testimony). Therefore, Apple will be thought to have adopted lies and misconceptions to this court. “

Apple intimidated the screens even more terrible

“Apple has arranged a warning message, called” Degree Decation “to distract users from using third -party payment options.”

…

“The screen on the right is called” sheet “, which is the download of the entire screen after the user clicks on the external
link. Moving left to the right, the user warning level increases. Again, Apple chose the most concnity option, namely the download of the entire screen. “

…

“Again, Apple opted for the most difficult competitive option, or” worse “option to include the name of the developers, not the app name. All this was hidden from the court and not discovered in evidence of the May 2024.”

“Few developers have applied for the Link Rights Program (external purchases).”

“Since he hearing in May 2024, only 34 developers of about 136,000 programs at the App Store reported for the program, and seventeen developers offered them first and foremost to buy via apps. Apple claimed in May 2024. Apple tried to seduce here.“

Court considers that Apple broke the letter and the spirit of prohibition

“There are a few questions with Apple’s argument. First, it is funny to expect any court to repeat the contents of an 180 pages published together with the concomitant banned in one passage. The latter is from the first. To suggest that it is different on soda. Second, even limited to four -member lining, Apple broke the literal text. Third, contrary to Apple’s position, other courts within this and other circles will look at the spirit of the prohibition when the litigation applies a suspicious interpretation of the ban, especially where this interpretation is designed to avoid the prohibition goals. “

…

“In short, Apple’s behavior has no justification: he does not align with the ban on the ban, requires a tense and questionable interpretation of that language, completely neglects the ban on this court on 180 pages and the opinion of the ninth circle on 91 pages, and encouraged a lie at the witness stop.

Court says that the transactions for connecting transactions were not justified

“Apple’s justifications for these requirements (listed above) Stress of credibility. Most importantly, the underlining of Apple’s justified justifications, Apple does not require developers to sell physical goods to apply for the right to connection before the linking transactions. Apple imposes these limitations only for the links that compete with the IAP. “

Court holds Apple in contempt

“Apple’s behavior violates the prohibition. Failure was far from ‘technical or de minimis. “Apple’s deficiency of adequate justification, knowledge of the economic non-intelligence of his compliance program, the motive for the protection of the illegal flow of revenue and launching a new de facto anticonic structure, and then create the reverse justification to offer The judgment in any universe cannot be considered real or virtual as a product of good faith or a reasonable interpretation of the court command. The court holds Apple in civic contempt. Santions and relief in relation to Apple’s inconsistency have been determined by the infra section IV. “

…

“Apple intentionally decided not to adhere to the prohibition of this court. It did with Expressions of the intention to create new anticonic barriers who, according to design and in force, would maintain a valuable flow of income; Previously, it was determined that the flow of revenue was anticonic. That he thought this court would tolerate such disobedience was a big mistake. As always, the concealment worsened. There is no other snack on the apple for this court. “