The contempt and deliberateness of it was upheld, but the injunction was ruled to overstep in two ways:
- Apple is now allowed to ensure links to competing payment services are not emphasized more-so than their own, which is reasonable enough
- Apple is to be allowed, pending court approval or agreement with Epic, "a commission on linked-out purchases based on the costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links for linked-out purchases, but no more" that excludes "commission for the security and privacy features it offers to external links" and "the cost associated with the security and privacy features it offers with its IAP"
So now it will return to court if Apple and Epic can't agree on what this cost is that Apple incurs if an app links to Stripe or PayPal, and TBD whether this is a cost that warrants a fee for every usage of the link or recurring payment stemming from it.
benoau•1mo ago
- Apple is now allowed to ensure links to competing payment services are not emphasized more-so than their own, which is reasonable enough
- Apple is to be allowed, pending court approval or agreement with Epic, "a commission on linked-out purchases based on the costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links for linked-out purchases, but no more" that excludes "commission for the security and privacy features it offers to external links" and "the cost associated with the security and privacy features it offers with its IAP"
So now it will return to court if Apple and Epic can't agree on what this cost is that Apple incurs if an app links to Stripe or PayPal, and TBD whether this is a cost that warrants a fee for every usage of the link or recurring payment stemming from it.