The facts: U.S. Federal Judge and Epic Games Challenge Whether Apple has complied with the The Order to Allow Payment Steering

A hearing on evidence is set for the Epic Games v. Apple case. The court will be looking into the question of whether Apple has truly complied to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' order that gave developers of apps to "steer" users towards alternative payment options outside within the regional App Store.

Hearings regarding the evidence for Apple's compliance with the law began on the 8th of May. AP reports that court judge Gonzalez Rogers " questioned whether Apple had set up various unneeded obstacles which hinder the ability to use alternative payment methods inside iPhone apps," in spite of the court's directive.

Discussions focused on the subject whether Apple Policy Is Still Anti-Steering

The AP article further reveals the fact that the judge Gonzalez Rogers' tone suggested the Apple's policy has mostly been about making sure Apple's profit margins are protected instead of ensuring it is in line with the purpose of her decision to allow steering, and improve iPhone users' capacity to easily switch to other payments in the app. In line to the Epic documents, Apple is still blocking customers from directing them to alternative payment options with lower cost alternatives.

The AP report goes on to state that as part of the hearing Apple Director of the iPhone App Store, Matthew Fischer declared that Apple had received and approved applications for 38 apps which provide links to payment processors, "a fraction of the approximately two million iPhone apps available in the U.S."

PC Mag points out that the figure is an insignificant fraction of applications 38 out of the 65,000 app developers that allow the purchase of in-app items - it is likely due to the cost in the form of 27 per cent Apple cost plus the expense of credit card fees may result in greater cost for app developers. applications.

HTML0 Apple Executive 'Unaware' of the cost-increase issue

The LAW360 story that was published on Friday, May 10 describes the day's events that included Epic legal counsel Yonatan Even as well as the court judge Gonzalez Rogers questioned Apple Finance Vice President Alex Roman. The judge also emphasized the less expensive rate of 3% that is offered by Apple -- which is 27% for transactions in apps that aren't available on Apple devices compared to the standard $30 app fee. Epic provided proof to prove that the average cost of payments across the U.S. is 3.5% and a yoga app CEO has stated that customers pay 3.5 percent up to 6.5 percent in fees for payment processing. After Roman claimed that he wasn't aware of that fact, Even reiterated that the purpose was to determine an amount which would enable users to pay reasonable prices. He demanded Roman whether he was aware of what the meaning of this. Judge Gonzalez Rogers is quoted as saying to Roman that "'It appears that you took lots of decisions with lack of information",' she added. "It seems to me that the goal was to protect ... your income from before.'" Access to the LAW360 report here.

   Pleased to See the Judge's View using Epic  

Director of Operations David Nachman states that "We're delighted to know that the judge has sided with of Epic concerning the disagreement. We're hoping that the court can make it mandatory for Apple to let steering be available to app and game creators, for no cost but with limitations. 's mission is to democratize the market by leveraging digital and software firms. we're with our customers to feel proud of this first step to open-source commerce for the mobile world."

Additional Antitrust Case Against Apple launched by US Justice Department

Alongside this Epic Games matter The U.S. Justice Department has also launched an antitrust lawsuit against Apple during the month of March 2024 in which it claimed that Apple has the sole monopoly of the smartphones market and that this includes (among other things) regarding electronic payments.

   More information about HTML0:  

   News in the field as well as the views of  

   More About  

The post was published on this site.

This post was posted on here