{"id":33589,"date":"2021-09-10T16:29:22","date_gmt":"2021-09-10T20:29:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=33589"},"modified":"2025-05-07T10:50:45","modified_gmt":"2025-05-07T14:50:45","slug":"anti-steering-ruling-in-epic-v-apple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2021\/09\/10\/anti-steering-ruling-in-epic-v-apple\/","title":{"rendered":"Anti-Steering Ruling in Epic v. Apple"},"content":{"rendered":"

Russell Brandom<\/a> (via Nilay Patel<\/a>, Hacker<\/a> News<\/a>, 9to5Mac<\/a>, MacRumors<\/a>, Slashdot<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a permanent injunction<\/a> in the Epic v. Apple<\/em> case on Friday morning, putting new restrictions on Apple’s App Store rules and bringing months of bitter legal jousting to a conclusion.<\/p>

Under the new order, Apple is:<\/p>

permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.<\/p><\/blockquote>

In short, iOS apps must be allowed to direct users to payment options beyond those offered by Apple. The injunction is scheduled to take effect in 90 days — on December 9th — unless it is enjoined by a higher court.<\/p>

In a separate judgment<\/a>, the court affirmed that Epic Games was in breach of its contract with Apple when it implemented the alternative payment system in the Fortnite<\/em> app. As a result, Epic must pay Apple 30 percent of all revenue collected through the system since it was implemented — a sum of more than $3.5 million.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Juli Clover<\/a>:<\/p>\n

In a statement on Twitter, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said that the company was not happy with the verdict, and at the current time, there are no immediate plans for Fortnite to return to the App Store. Sweeney said that today’s ruling “isn’t a win” for developers or consumers.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Though Apple did not score a total win, Apple lawyer Kate Adams told members of the media<\/a> that the ruling was a “resounding victory” that validates the App Store business model. Apple’s official statement highlights the anti-trust portion of the ruling, which went in Apple’s favor. Apple has yet to comment on the outside payment requirement.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Epic Games plans to appeal the parts of the ruling that it does not agree with, and Apple too will likely submit an appeal to push back on the anti-steering requirements the judge has enacted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Ben Thompson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Epic lost on everything else, and has to pay Apple 30% of the money it earned from its own in-app purchase flow. And Apple can still kick them out of the store. Truly a self-sacrifice for developers generally 🤷‍♂️<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

One final note: neither this ruling nor the JFTC settlement say that Apple can’t require IAP. In fact this injunction specifically says developers can link out “in addition to” IAP. No mention about offering different prices.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Steve Troughton-Smith<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple just lost a huge part of the Epic vs Apple case, breaking open the App Store to alternate payment systems — Apple will almost certainly appeal the ruling, but with the pressure mounting globally over this very issue, I think the writing is on the wall<\/p>\n

This also means that Epic was completely justified in the stunt they pulled, adding alternate payments to Fortnite, as Apple’s rules on this, & enforcement thereof, are illegal<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Matthew Panzarino<\/a>:<\/p>\n

This is really a big likely loss for consumer protections. Have fun chasing down all of the fraudulent scammy junk cash grabs that will result. Big win for game\/IAP-focused publishers and for Stripe though.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Imagine a world where Apple had introduced a Stripe partnership a year ago and offered two clear options for developers, web via Stripe or streamlined IAP inside apps.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

M.G. Siegler<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple needed to tear down the wall proactively and win by competing. And the wild is, they easily could have! (And now will.) In-App\/Apple Pay is a great product and has inherent advantages thanks to the iPhone. Just a dumb misread and self-own.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Craig Hockenberry<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Apple is competing against Stripe now.<\/p>\n

In my mind, that’s a good thing because Stripe is really fucking great.<\/p>\n

If Apple can match their pricing & functionality, they’ll get my business both as a developer and a consumer because I know where they stand on privacy.<\/p>\n

Also, when I say “Stripe”, I really mean “Apple Pay”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Joe Fabisevich<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Stripe is gonna make one hell of an IAP SDK. People keep talking about how Apple has to allow developers to link to the web for payments, but there’s no reason someone like Stripe can’t make a top notch easy to setup native experience.<\/p>\n

In my view this is probably one of the best outcomes. Alternative App Stores would be an absolute mess, and while I hope Apple provides some sort of payment plugin to ensure the best experiences, companies that already provide good competitive experiences is a great outcome.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Perhaps it’s the best that could be expected from this case, but there are so many problems that alternate app stores or sideloading would address that this ruling doesn’t.<\/p>\n\n

Steve Troughton-Smith<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Seeing a few people interpret the ruling as devs are now allowed ‘to link out’ to 3rd-party purchasing. To me, this specifically prohibits Apple from stopping devs having buttons or other calls to action to use a different payment provider, in-app or ex-app. No link-out necessary<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

That’s not how Apple sees it. It is an ambiguously worded injunction, though. Apple’s take, as I understand it, as well as my take, is that it means apps can steer users to the web in addition to<\/em> IAP.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Michael Love<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Apple seems to be discreetly leaking that interpretation to a bunch of people, but since the language is lifted directly from the App Review Guidelines it’s very hard to argue that it’s doing anything short of totally blocking the anti-steering portion of 3.1.1.<\/p>

Whatever version of “buttons” Apple says we’re not allowed to use to direct users to outside purchasing mechanisms, that’s the version of “buttons” that they’re no longer allowed to ban.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

See also: Nilay Patel<\/a> (tweet<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n

Curtis Herbert<\/a>:<\/p>\n

My guess, new IAP rules will follow Sign in with Apple:<\/p>\n