This Week's Sponsor:

Inoreader

Boost Productivity and Gain Insights with AI-Powered Intelligence Tools

Posts tagged with "litigation"

Eddy Cue Causes a Stir for Google

2025 is shaping up to be the year of litigation for big tech. Apple’s been held in contempt and has an antitrust case on the horizon, Meta is in the midst of an antitrust trial, and Google is defending two antitrust lawsuits at once. Every one of these cases is a high-stakes challenge to the status quo, and collectively, they have the potential to reshape the tech industry for years to come.

The ultimate question for Google right now is whether it will be broken up. What will become of its ad tech business, and will it be forced to sell Chrome? That will be decided by the judges in those cases, but along the way, there are plenty of sideshow dramas worth keeping an eye on. This week, it was Google’s turn for a little litigation drama that was prompted not by a judge, but by none other than Apple’s SVP of Services Eddy Cue.

As part of Google’s search antitrust case, Cue testified yesterday that in April 2025, Google searches declined in Safari for the very first time. Cue’s testimony, which was reported on by Mark Gurman, Leah Nylen, and Stephanie Lai of Bloomberg, went on to explain that Apple is investigating AI search as an alternative to traditional search engines, noting that the company has had discussions with Perplexity.

Google’s stock immediately began to fall. By the close of trading, it was down around 7.5% and had caused enough concern internally at Google that the company felt compelled to release a one-paragraph statement on its blog, The Keyword, responding not to the testimony but to “press reports:”

Here’s our statement on this morning’s press reports about Search traffic.

We continue to see overall query growth in Search. That includes an increase in total queries coming from Apple’s devices and platforms. More generally, as we enhance Search with new features, people are seeing that Google Search is more useful for more of their queries — and they’re accessing it for new things and in new ways, whether from browsers or the Google app, using their voice or Google Lens. We’re excited to continue this innovation and look forward to sharing more at Google I/O.

It’s not news that Google Search is under threat from AI. However, Cue’s testimony under oath that Google searches in Safari are in decline is the first concrete evidence publicly shared that the threat is not just theoretical, which is a big deal.

Apple’s exploration of AI-based search is not terribly surprising either, but I do hope they cut a broader deal with Anthropic instead of Perplexity. I understand why Perplexity’s product is popular, but its CEO’s contempt for the open web and user privacy is something that I’d rather not see Apple perpetuate through a partnership.

Amazon Adds Links to Purchase Books to Its Kindle App→

As reported by Andrew Liszewski at The Verge, Amazon has updated the Kindle app to add a “Get Book” button, a direct result of last week’s contempt order entered by Judge Gonzalez Rodgers. When tapped, it takes users to the Amazon page for the book in Safari with the Kindle version selected. Before today’s update, you couldn’t purchase a book without going to Safari first.

In a low key statement to The Verge over email, Amazon’s Tim Gillman said:

We regularly make improvements to our apps to help ensure we are providing customers the most convenient experience possible. By selecting ‘Get Book’ within the Kindle for iOS app, customers can now complete their purchase through their mobile web browser.

I expect other companies will follow Amazon and Spotify’s leads in the coming weeks. Although Apple has appealed Judge Gonzalez Rodgers’ contempt order, the Judge declined to stay its enforcement during the appeals process. It’s always possible an appeal could force Amazon and others to undo changes like this, but I think a more likely outcome is that an appellate court allows Apple to charge a fee where Judge Gonzalez Rodgers wasn’t – one that’s lower than the 27% that got Apple into trouble in the first place.

Permalink

Developers and Platforms React as App Store Rules Change in the U.S.

On Wednesday evening, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers held Apple in contempt, ordering, among other things, that it immediately drop the 27% fee it was charging developers who linked users to the web for purchases. As the judge put it:

This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays.

(Contempt Order at pg. 3).

As Chance Miller reported at 9to5Mac, those changes are already reflected in Apple’s App Review Guidelines. In an email sent to anyone with a developer account, Apple explained:

The App Review Guidelines have been updated for compliance with a United States court decision regarding buttons, external links, and other calls to action in apps. These changes affect apps distributed on the United States storefront of the App Store, and are as follows:

  • 3.1.1: Apps on the United States storefront are not prohibited from including buttons, external links, or other calls to action when allowing users to browse NFT collections owned by others.
  • 3.1.1(a): On the United States storefront, there is no prohibition on an app including buttons, external links, or other calls to action, and no entitlement is required to do so.
  • 3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply on the United States storefront.
  • 3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not required for apps on the United States storefront to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action.

(Source: Apple email to developers on May 1, 2025).

Notably, the changes affect only the U.S. App Store, further fragmenting App Store rules along geopolitical boundaries which began with regulations in China, South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands, and the EU.

Probably the best evidence that Apple’s former rules were restraining competition is the flurry of additional news since Judge Gonzalez Rodgers’ ruling:

  • As I predicted in my story, Patreon has said it will submit an update to its app to allow creators to accept payments outside its iOS app, something that was possible until last summer when Patreon was forced to retrofit its app to account for Apple’s In-App Purchases and payments through its website in what was an inelegant solution that forced creators to either charge more on iOS or absorb Apple’s fees on what are often small monthly payments to begin with.
  • Spotify posted on its blog that it has already submitted an update to its app that will let users see how much a Spotify subscription costs from inside the app and link out to Spotify’s website to upgrade or change their subscription plans.
  • Payment processor Stripe whipped up documentation guiding developers through the process of setting up subscription and digital goods sales outside their apps.
  • Beginning in June, the Epic Games Store will handle payment processing for developers at no cost up to the developers’ first $1 million of revenue. After $1 million of revenue the split will be the existing 88% to developers and 12% to Epic Games. In June, Epic Games will also offer developers the ability to set up their own webshops for ‘out-of-app purchases.’ The webshops will be available to iOS developers in the U.S. and EU and users making purchases in them will get 5% back in Epic Rewards for their purchases. Epic Games has not said how much it will charge developers who set up a webshop.

These moves by big players aren’t surprising, and I’m sure we’ll see more companies explore ways to take advantage of Wednesday’s ruling. Over time, though, the more interesting consequence of Wednesday’s ruling will be whether and how it changes the business models of indie developers and other small businesses that offer apps.

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