Today the judge in Epic v. Apple issued a lengthy ruling holding that Epic failed to prove that Apple has a monopoly in mobile gaming transactions. Importantly, the court also held that Apple’s rules preventing other payment options in the App Store are anticompetitive, and issued an injunction telling Apple to cut it out.
In particular, the court said that “Apple is participating in anticompetitive direct,” and that “Apple’s enemy of controlling arrangements conceal basic data from purchasers and illicitly smother customer decision.”
To fix that, the court gave the accompanying extremely durable directive banning Apple from having rules against other installment frameworks. I’ve bolded the most important bit:
Apple Inc. what’s more, its officials, specialists, workers, representatives, and any individual in dynamic show or support with them (“Apple”), are thus for all time controlled and urged from forbidding engineers from (I) remembering for their applications and their metadata buttons, outside joins, or different suggestions to take action that immediate clients to buying instruments, notwithstanding In-App Purchasing and (ii) speaking with clients through resources acquired deliberately from clients through account enrollment inside the application.
This specific wording is lifted directly from Apple’s App Store rule 3.1.1, which says “Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase,” so it’s tempting to think that the judge just declared that rule anticompetitive and crossed it out.
But it’s a little more complicated than that — now that this text is in a judicial order, it no longer belongs to Apple, or needs to be interpreted how Apple wants. Indeed, the court was clear that it will enforce this rule, and that if anyone thinks Apple is breaking it, it wants to know. Again, my bolding:
The Court will retain jurisdiction over the enforcement and amendment of the injunction. If any part of this Order is violated by any party named herein or any other person, plaintiff may, by motion with notice to the attorneys for defendant, apply for sanctions or other relief that may be appropriate.
So now comes the really complicated part. What does this injunction mean for Apple and the App Store? Let’s break this rule down piece by piece — the difference between a “button” and an “external link” is going to be remarkably important here.
- not allowed to prohibit developers from including in their apps and their metadata
- external links, or
- other calls to action
- that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms
- in addition to In-App Purchasing.
We can make some versions of this sentence make sense really easily:
- Apple is not allowed to prohibit developers from including external links in their apps that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms.
- Apple is not allowed to prohibit developers from including calls to action in app metadata [like descriptions in the App Store] that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms.
But consider the following version of this sentence:
- Apple is not allowed to prohibit developers from including buttons in their apps that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms.
Well, shit. Here is an example of a button that takes you to a purchasing mechanism in the Amazon app:
This is the ballgame! What’s the significance here for a button in an application to “direct a client to buying instruments”? Is it a checkout button? Would amazon be able to add a truck, a checkout button, and installments to the Kindle application now? The court isn’t dumb — it indicated buttons and outside joins, which implies they are ventured to be particular. So a button can’t simply be an outer connection that kicks you to Safari.
Apple will attempt to say that “button” simply implies what something resembles, while engineers will say that “button” signifies how something works.
That implies that a reasonable perusing of the plain text of this order proposes that buttons in iOS applications can guide clients to buying components in the application — if the button simply shows you out to the web, it would be an outer connection!
I’m sure a ton of engineers will test this language forcefully, and that Apple will end up growing new guidelines to secure its rewarding in-application buying framework from contest. What’s more, I’m sure Apple will attempt to say that “button” simply implies what something resembles, while engineers will say that “button” signifies how something works. (There is a great deal of incongruity in this for Apple.)
Be that as it may, eventually, it will not be dependent upon Apple to choose what this request implies — it will be up the court. What’s more, that is a sensitive situation to be in, on the grounds that the court unequivocally thinks the counter controlling guideline is exceptionally anticompetitive.
Apple didn’t react to a solicitation for input on the distinction among buttons and outside joins.