App Store Clash: Apple Targets External Links with New Fees in the US

Recent Legal Developments Involving Apple

In May, a court in California found that Apple was not complying with a previous injunction aimed at curbing its anti-competitive practices by still imposing fees on purchases made outside of its App Store. While Apple did allow developers to include links to their own external stores, it continued to collect a commission ranging from 12% to 27% on these third-party transactions. As a result, Apple was ordered to stop charging any fees on purchases made outside of the App Store.

Apple Challenges Court Decision

Four months following the ruling, MacRumors has reported that Apple is appealing the decision, which it claims to be unconstitutional. The company argues that it adhered to the original injunction by imposing a 12% to 27% fee on external transactions and believes that the spring court ruling unfairly expanded the scope of the initial injunction beyond what the law permits.

The new injunction lays out detailed new design and formatting rules and dictates the messages Apple can communicate to its users on its own platform. These requirements represent an inappropriate extension and alteration of the original injunction—rather than an enforcement attempt—and infringe on the First Amendment by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with. Epic emphasizes the district court’s focus on the “spirit” of the original injunction and Apple’s alleged bad faith, but civil contempt hinges on whether a party has breached the actual terms of an injunction, something Epic fails to substantially demonstrate.

Apple’s Defense and Intellectual Property Rights

Apple maintains that it has the right to seek financial compensation for the use of its technologies protected by intellectual property rights: “The new district court’s broad zero-commission rule is ill-suited to the harm claimed by Epic, imposes an unjust punitive sanction, and results in unconstitutional expropriation.”

The Scope of the Injunction

Since Epic Games is the sole complainant in this case, Apple also contends that the injunction, which alters the App Store’s rules for all developers, is overly broad. Apple suggests that the injunction should be tailored specifically to Epic’s interests: “Requiring Apple to permit external transactions to entities like Spotify, Microsoft, or Amazon does not benefit Epic and is unnecessary to remedy the harm suffered by Epic.” Consequently, Apple is requesting the annulment of the new injunction and a reevaluation of the initial one to determine if it is excessively broad. Thus, the legal battle continues.