This Week's Sponsor:

Quip

A supercharged clipboard manager for Apple devices with on-device intelligence, iCloud sync, and text expansion.

Posts tagged with "Legal"

Apple Opens Up New App Distribution Options in the EU, Along with New and Updated Fees

To avoid additional fines, Apple is making several new changes to App Store rules in the EU. Today’s changes are a result of an April ruling by the European Commission that levied a €500 million fine against the company and ordered that it “…remove the technical and commercial restrictions on steering and to refrain from perpetuating the non-compliant conduct in the future….”

The changes are complex and wide-ranging, but among the highlights regarding in-app offers are changes that:

  • allow developers to communicate and promote offers for digital goods and services in their apps, which can steer users to the web, an alternative app marketplace, or another app either inside their app via a web view or native code, or outside their app;
  • permit developers to design these offers themselves, which can include pricing and instructions on how to take advantage of the offers outside the app;
  • allow offers to include links to the destination of the developer’s choice; and
  • prohibits developers from making offers outside the App Store using Apple’s In-App Purchase or StoreKit External Link Account entitlement for reader apps on the same OS;
  • require an informational banner in the App Store that shows it offers external purchases.

Fees have changed for developers offering external purchases, too, and include:

  • an initial acquisition fee of 2% is charged for sales made within six months of a user’s first unpaid installation of an app;
  • a 5% or 13% store services fee depending on the store services used for any purchases made within 12 months of an app’s download;
  • for apps that offer external purchases, a Core Technology Commission (not Fee) of 5% for purchases made within 12 months of installation will be charged;
  • the Core Technology Fee still exists, until the end of the year, for apps that don’t use the external purchase APIs if their installations exceed one million installations on a rolling 12-month basis; and
  • lower fees for Small Business Program developers.

Note, too, that by January 1, 2026, the Core Technology Fee will be replaced by the Core Technology Commission.

Also, developers in the EU will be able to offer their apps not only through alternative app marketplaces, where were already available, but also their own websites. To sell an app via a website, you have to be an Apple Developer in good standing for two consecutive years, obtain a €1,000,000 standby letter of credit, and have an app that has more than one million First Annual Installs on iOS and/or iPadOS in the prior calendar year. As you would expect, developers selling outside the App Store are responsible for managing the purchase process, taxes, and customer service, and failing to do so could result in the revocation of API access by Apple.

All right, that’s a lot and while I’ve tried to boil it down to the core points, there are a lot of details developers should study carefully and understand before taking the plunge of selling their apps outside the EU App Store. The best place to learn more now is from Apple. Start with the developer announcement, which links to more details about the new rules and relevant legal documents. Apple is also offering 30-minute sessions for EU developers to ask questions and provide feedback.

If you’re wondering what Apple thinks of all this, well, it’s not happy. An unnamed spokesperson told CNBC:

The European Commission is requiring Apple to make a series of additional changes to the App Store. We disagree with this outcome and plan to appeal.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The fee structure and rules are complex and will need to be studied closely to evaluate the practical effect of the changes. That said, I’m cautiously optimistic that our readers in the EU will soon have more choice than ever, which I’m glad to see.

Apple Denied a Stay of Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ Contempt Order

Reuters reported today that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District has denied Apple’s motion to stay the effect of District Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ contempt order that required the company to allow developers to link to payment processing outside the App Store. Had Apple prevailed, Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ order would have been put on hold, allowing Apple to prevent developers from linking to external payment processing. Instead, developers can continue to add external payment options to their apps, which many already have.

The burden for staying an order pending appeal is high. As the Court of Appeals explained in its order:

In deciding whether to impose a stay, we consider:

“(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.”

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).

This doesn’t mean Apple has no chance to win on appeal, but as the Ninth Circuit said quite bluntly in its order:

…we are not persuaded that a stay is appropriate.

And, given that the first factor the court decided was whether Apple is “likely to succeed on the merits,” things are not looking promising.

In a statement to 9to5Mac, an unnamed Apple spokesperson said:

We are disappointed with the decision not to stay the district court’s order, and we’ll continue to argue our case during the appeals process. As we’ve said before, we strongly disagree with the district court’s opinion. Our goal is to ensure the App Store remains an incredible opportunity for developers and a safe and trusted experience for our users.

Given that the writing is on the wall for the appeal, you can bet Apple is already looking ahead to the U.S. Supreme Court and will use the Ninth Circuit case as a dry run for that subsequent appeal.

EU Sets DMA Compliance Deadline in App Store Anti-Steering Dispute

Last month, the European Commission (EC) fined Apple €500 million for violating the Digital Markets Act. Today, the EC issued its full 67-page ruling on the matter, giving Apple until July 23 to pay the fine or face accruing interest on the penalty.

The ruling focuses on Apple’s anti-steering rules, which were the focus of the contempt order recently entered by a U.S. District Court Judge in California. According to the EC:

Apple has not substantiated any security concerns. Apple simply states that some limitations, such as linking out only to a website that the app developer owns or has responsibility for, are allegedly grounded in security reasons. However, Apple does not explain why the app developer’s website is more secure than a third party website which the app developer has taken the conscious decision to link out to. It also does not explain why this limitation is objectively necessary and proportionate to protect the end user’s security and therefore has not provided any adequate justifications in this regard.

(EC ruling at p. 22). In other words, “the App Store isn’t more secure than the web just because you say it is.”

Apple has until June 22 to bring the App Store into compliance with the EC’s ruling or face additional periodic penalties (EC ruling at p. 67). As we reported in April, Apple has said that it intends to appeal the EC’s ruling.

Microsoft Eyes Xbox Web Store after Epic Court Decision→

In the wake of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ decision in Epic Games’ litigation against Apple, I commented on NPC: Next Portable Console that I expected Microsoft to enter the fray with its own web store soon. As reported by Tom Warren at The Verge, it looks like that’s exactly what Microsoft intends to do. Commenting on Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ contempt order in the context of Epic’s recent motion to return Fortnite to the App Store, Warren notes:

It’s a key ruling that has already allowed Fortnite to return to the App Store in the US, complete with the ability for Epic Games to link out to its own payment system inside the game. Microsoft has wanted to offer a similar experience for its Xbox mobile store prior to the ruling, but it says its solution “has been stymied by Apple.”

Ultimately, Microsoft wants its customers to be able to purchase and play its games from inside the Xbox app:

Microsoft started rolling out the ability to purchase games and DLC inside the Xbox mobile app last month, but it had to remove the remote play option to adhere to Apple’s App Store policies. You can’t currently buy an Xbox game in the Xbox mobile app on iOS and then stream it inside that same app. You have to manually navigate to the Xbox Cloud Gaming mobile website on a browser to get access to cloud gaming.

Developers continue to add options to link out to the web to purchase content, but as Microsoft’s court filing shows, the biggest players on the App Store are weighing the cost of setting up their own storefronts against the risk that Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ decision will be reversed on appeal.

Permalink

A Breach of Trust: Apple Held in Contempt Over App Store Rules

Late yesterday, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a blistering opinion, concluding that Apple had willfully disregarded the Court’s 2021 injunction, which found that the anti-steering provisions of the App Review Guidelines violated California state law. Judge Gonzalez Rogers also referred Apple’s conduct to the U.S. Attorney to investigate whether criminal prosecution of the company and one of its employees is warranted. For its part, Apple has said it disagrees with the decision and will appeal, but it will comply with the Court’s order in the meantime.

If that all sounds like it’s a big deal, that’s because it is. Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ 80-page opinion and order don’t pull any punches, painting a damning picture of Apple’s response to the Court’s injunction. It’s a unique and unflattering look behind the curtain at how Apple responded to the Court’s 2021 order that’s worth looking at more closely.

Read more

EU Fines Apple €500 Million for Digital Markets Act Violations

In a press release issued today, the European Commission (EC) announced that it has fined Apple €500 million for violations of the EU’s Digital Markets Act. The EC also fined Meta €200 million.

The EC’s press release explains that:

Under the DMA, app developers distributing their apps via Apple’s App Store should be able to inform customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store, steer them to those offers and allow them to make purchases.

The Commission found that Apple fails to comply with this obligation. Due to a number of restrictions imposed by Apple, app developers cannot fully benefit from the advantages of alternative distribution channels outside the App Store. Similarly, consumers cannot fully benefit from alternative and cheaper offers as Apple prevents app developers from directly informing consumers of such offers. The company has failed to demonstrate that these restrictions are objectively necessary and proportionate.

In addition to the fine, the EC has ordered Apple:

…to remove the technical and commercial restrictions on steering and to refrain from perpetuating the non-compliant conduct in the future…

The Commission also closed its investigation into Apple’s user choice obligations under the DMA, finding that the company’s browser choice screen and interface for setting new default apps to satisfy the DMA’s requirements.

An unnamed Apple representative speaking to CNN criticized the fine:

A representative for Apple said the fine is “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting” the company and forcing it to “give away (its) technology for free.” It added that it plans to appeal the decision.

We have spent hundreds of thousands of engineering hours and made dozens of changes to comply with this law, none of which our users have asked for. Despite countless meetings, the Commission continues to move the goal posts every step of the way.

The EC’s fines aren’t surprising given the long history and tenor of the investigation. What remains open as a point of potential future disputes is Apple’s compliance with the EC’s new order. As stated by its representative to CNN, Apple also plans to appeal today’s decision.

The European Commission Opens Two iOS Interoperability Proceedings Against Apple

The European Commission (EC) issued a press release today summarizing two specification proceedings that they have commenced against Apple:

The first proceeding focuses on several iOS connectivity features and functionalities, predominantly used for and by connected devices. Connected devices are a varied, large and commercially important group of products, including smartwatches, headphones and virtual reality headsets. Companies offering these products depend on effective interoperability with smartphones and their operating systems, such as iOS. The Commission intends to specify how Apple will provide effective interoperability with functionalities such as notifications, device pairing and connectivity.

The second proceeding focuses on the process Apple has set up to address interoperability requests submitted by developers and third parties for iOS and IPadOS. It is crucial that the request process is transparent, timely, and fair so that all developers have an effective and predictable path to interoperability and are enabled to innovate.

In a nutshell, the EC is unhappy with connectivity between iOS and third-party devices and plans to tell the company how to comply. The second part requires Apple to set up a process for third parties to request connectivity with iOS.

The EC has given Apple six months to comply with its latest proceedings, during which the commission will share its preliminary findings with Apple and publish a non-confidential summary of the findings publicly so third parties can offer comments.

Apple prides itself on its tight integration between hardware and software, and the EC is determined to open that up for the benefit of all hardware manufacturers. While I think that is a good goal, we’re getting very close to the EU editing APIs, which I find hard to imagine will lead to an optimal outcome for Apple, third-party manufacturers, or consumers. However, if you accept the goal as worthwhile, it’s just as hard to imagine accomplishing it any other way given Apple’s apparent unwillingness to open iOS up itself.

The Risk to Apple of OS Envy→

With the rerelease of iOS 18.0, the EU and the rest of the world will have two flavors of the iPhone’s operating system. As Jason Snell writes for Macworld, this is one of Apple’s greatest fears, but there are potentially bigger risks on the horizon for the company. As Jason explains:

…to me, the bigger danger is envy. It strikes me that Apple has tried to make residents of the European Union envious of other regions by withholding Apple Intelligence, at least at first. There are legal reasons to do so, of course, but it’s also a lesson to Europeans that if they support such a strict regulatory regime, they’re going to be left on the side of the road while the rest of the world enjoys the bounty of AI features inside iOS. (Whether that bounty actually exists is beside the point.)

Yet, when I consider everything being experimented with in the EU, I start to wonder if the envy is actually going to flow in the other direction. The Verge said that the iPhone is now “more fun” in the EU. Noted iOS expert Federico Viticci wrote that the EU version of iOS “is the version of iOS I’ve wanted for the past few years,” and that “we can finally use our phones like actual computers.”

As someone who loves clipboard managers and uses several apps that aren’t Apple’s defaults, I am warming up to their point of view.

I’m right there with Jason. At first, the differences between my iOS and Federico’s didn’t seem like that big of a deal. Sure, it was easier for him to access AltStore, but it’s available outside the EU if you jump through some extra hoops. However, over time, the differences have multiplied. I’ve also had the chance to try Apple Intelligence in 18.1, and although there’s more to come from Apple on the AI front, which could change my calculus, from where things stand today, I’d gladly trade iOS 18.1 for the EU’s 18.0.

Permalink

Google’s Antitrust Loss, Why Apple Doesn’t Just Build a Search Engine, and What Comes Next

Yesterday, Federal District Judge Amit Mehta issued a ruling in the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust case against Google in favor of the government. Judge Mehta didn’t mince words:

Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The Judge further explained his ruling:

Specifically, the court holds that (1) there are relevant product markets for general search services and general search text ads; (2) Google has monopoly power in those markets; (3) Google’s distribution agreements are exclusive and have anticompetitive effects; and (4) Google has not offered valid procompetitive justifications for those agreements. Importantly, the court also finds that Google has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads. That conduct has allowed Google to earn monopoly profits.

It’s a long opinion, coming in at nearly 300 pages, but the upshot of why Judge Mehta ruled the way he did is summed up nicely near the beginning of the tome:

But Google also has a major, largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution. Most users access a general search engine through a browser (like Apple’s Safari) or a search widget that comes preloaded on a mobile device. Those search access points are preset with a “default” search engine. The default is extremely valuable real estate. Because many users simply stick to searching with the default, Google receives billions of queries every day through those access points. Google derives extraordinary volumes of user data from such searches. It then uses that information to improve search quality. Google so values such data that, absent a user-initiated change, it stores 18 months-worth of a user’s search history and activity.

If you’re interested in how web search works and the business deals that drive it, the opinion is a great primer. Plus, although the details already dribbled out over the course of the 10-week trial, there are lots of interesting bits of information buried in there for anyone interested in Apple’s search deal with Google.

Read more