The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeals court ruling in Apple and Epic's long-running dispute over iOS store policies, ending the legal battle between the two parties, at least for now (as reported by Reuters).

Apple had appealed a lower court ruling ordering certain changes to its iOS policies, while Epic had appealed the same court ruling that its iOS distribution and monetization policies did not violate federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court justices gave no reasons for their decision to dismiss both cases.

"The legal battle to open iOS to competing stores and payments has been lost in the US. A sad outcome for all developers."

"Now, the district court's injunction against Apple's anti-stealer rule remains in effect, allowing developers to include in their apps "in addition to IAPs, buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to a purchase mechanism."

Epic may have lost the war, but the ruling on Apple's anti-steering rule was the one battle the company won: Apple must force app developers to direct users to non-iOS content billing methods. Apple must comply with the court's ruling, but in a surprising turn of events, chose the path of malicious compliance: apps can now direct users outside of the iOS payment ecosystem, but drum roll please, Apple still requires a 27% of all purchases cut, and it's demanding a cut. In Apple's own words,

"Apple's commission will be 27% on revenue earned from the sale ("transaction") of digital goods or services to users on your website after linking out (i.e., after users tap "Continue" on the system disclosure sheet)

Yes.

Yes, that's kind of pointless. And guess who is outraged? Apple filed a bad faith "compliance" plan in response to the district court's injunction. That completely undermines the order."

Sweeney cites various problems with Apple's intended plan. He calls the 27% fee on web purchases an "Apple tax" that "kills price competition," and says Apple has intentionally isolated this process from the normal "payment flow" on iOS. As a result, users must log into a separate browser session and "re-locate the digital item they wish to purchase." In addition, the system as it is displays a warning to the user with what Sweeney calls a "fear screen."

You can't imagine where this is going. This man, who has many attorneys on his side, is not going to take this lying down. Epic will be challenging Apple's dishonest compliance plan in district court. Apple has not commented on the ruling, nor has CEO Tim Cook.

It has been a long road to this point; Epic first filed an antitrust lawsuit in 2020, forcing iPhone users to install all apps and make all purchases through the App Store (the fee is typically 30%), and Apple When the case reached the court in 2021, the central antitrust claim was dismissed, but the judge found that Apple violated competition law in its refusal to allow developers to direct users to alternative payment systems that circumvent Apple's own payment system. Epic's argument was essentially that if developers could do this, it would open the door to more competition, lower prices, and net benefits for consumers.

The ruling went through the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last year and was largely upheld.

As far as this lawsuit is concerned, we do. But that's just in the U.S. A new European Union law that goes into effect in March will force Apple to allow downloads from sources other than the App Store, and the EU is currently engaged in an antitrust case against Apple (again, the main focus is that developers cannot steer users to other payment methods). The EU is currently conducting an The Timm family's war will continue for some time yet.