"The ruling, signed by a panel of three appellate court judges, affirmed that Apple's initial attempts to charge a 27 percent fee to iOS developers using outside payment options 'had a prohibitive effect, in violation of the injunction.' Similarly, Apple's restrictions on how those outside links had to be designed were overly broad; the appeals court suggests that Apple can only ensure that internal and external payment options are presented in a similar fashion."
"The appeals court also agreed that Apple acted in 'bad faith' by refusing to comply with the injunction, rejecting viable, compliant alternatives in internal discussions. And the appeals court was also not convinced by Apple's process-focused arguments, saying the district court properly evaluated materials Apple argued were protected by attorney-client privilege."
"While the district court barred Apple from charging any fees for payments made outside of its App Store, the appeals court now suggests that Apple should still be able to charge a 'reasonable fee' based on its 'actual costs to ensure user security and privacy.' It will be up to Apple and the district court to determine what that kind of 'reasonable fee' should look like going forward."
A district court found Apple in willful violation of a 2021 injunction intended to open iOS App Store payments. The Ninth Circuit largely upheld that contempt finding, concluding Apple's initial attempt to charge a 27 percent fee for developers using outside payment options had a prohibitive effect and that Apple’s mandated link-design restrictions were overly broad. The appeals court found Apple acted in bad faith by rejecting viable, compliant alternatives and rejected Apple’s process-focused privilege claims. The appeals court indicated Apple may charge a reasonable fee tied to actual security and privacy costs, to be defined by Apple and the district court.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]