Information: U.S. Federal Judge and Epic Games Challenge Whether Apple has complied with the The Order to Allow Payment Steering
An evidentiary hearing on the Epic Games v. Apple case is following up on whether Apple has truly complied to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' order that allowed app developers the ability to "steer" users towards third-party payment methods outside of the app's native App Store.
Hearings on the evidence of Apple's subsequent compliance began on May 8. AP is reporting the judge Gonzalez Rogers " questioned whether Apple has set an array of unnecessary barriers to hinder the use of alternative payments within iPhone apps," regardless of the court's directive.
Hearings focused on whether Apple Policy Is Still Anti-Steering
The AP piece further notes that the judge Gonzalez Rogers' tone suggested the Apple's approach has been primarily focused on protecting Apple's own profits rather than ensuring that it is in line with the purpose of her order to allow steering and increase iPhone customers' ability to easily switch to other in-app payment options. The piece explains that according to Epic document, Apple is still blocking users from steering them towards other payment methods with lower pricing options.
The AP report continues to say that, as part of the hearing, the Apple executive over the iPhone App Store, Matthew Fischer explained that Apple has received and accepted applications for 38 applications that display hyperlinks to payment platforms, "a fraction of the around two million iPhone applications available within the U.S."
PC Mag points out that this small number of apps 38 of 65,000 app creators that offer in-app purchases -it is most likely due to cost as the 27% Apple fee plus the cost of credit card fees could result in more expensive overall price for app developers.
Apple Executive 'Unaware' of the higher overall cost issue
The LAW360 story from Friday, May 10 recounts that day's proceedings in which Epic attorney Yonatan Even as well as 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 taking place in an application that is not on Apple devices as compared to its usual in-app $30 fee and then Epic has also presented evidence to show that the average cost of payments across the U.S. is 3.5% as well as a yoga app CEO stating that they pay 3.5 percent to 6.5% fees for payment processing. After Roman claimed that he wasn't aware of that, Even reiterated that the goal was to set an amount that allowed the developers to provide users with a better price by asking Roman if he understood that. The judge Gonzalez Rogers is quoted as telling Roman that "'It seems like you made lots of decisions with the absence of data,' she said. "It seems to me as if the goal was to preserve ... the 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 happy to see that the judge agree in favor of Epic with respect to this dispute, and we're hopeful that this court can require Apple to allow steering to game and app developers, without charges and limits. 's mission is to democratize global commerce for software and digital products companies. we're with our customers to celebrate this progress toward open commerce in mobile devices."
Additional Antitrust Case against Apple Launched by US Justice Department
Alongside in addition to the Epic Games case, the U.S. Justice Department launched an antitrust case against Apple in the month of March 2024 in which it claimed that Apple is the sole monopoly in the market for smartphones, which includes (among others) on the subject of digital payments.