{"id":33879,"date":"2021-10-11T16:08:10","date_gmt":"2021-10-11T20:08:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=33879"},"modified":"2021-10-11T16:08:10","modified_gmt":"2021-10-11T20:08:10","slug":"apple-appeals-anti-steering-ruling-in-epic-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2021\/10\/11\/apple-appeals-anti-steering-ruling-in-epic-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Apple Appeals Anti-Steering Ruling in Epic Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jay Peters and Sean Hollister<\/a> (PDF<\/a>, tweet<\/a>, MacRumors<\/a>):<\/p>\n

While Apple largely won that case (the company went so far as to call the ruling a “resounding victory”<\/a>) with Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruling in favor of Apple in nine of the ten claims Epic brought against the company, it did lose in one important way: the judge found that Apple violated California’s anti-steering rules, and demanded that Apple let developers link to outside payment systems. That policy would have taken over in December<\/a>, but it may be pushed out beyond that — and it seems that’s the point.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Apple claims that the new anti-steering rule is unnecessary because the company had already agreed to delete the offending section of its App Store Guidelines in the Cameron v. Apple <\/em>settlement, but that’s news to us: at the time<\/a>, Apple only agreed to “clarify” that app developers were allowed to communicate with consenting customers, not link to outside payment systems. That clarification was widely seen by developers as a red herring. At the time, Apple didn’t say anything about deleting a section of its App Store Guidelines entirely.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n