![]() This clause for years had prevented app developers from directing their customers to other ways to pay for in-app purchases or subscriptions from inside their apps, leading to confusing screens or broken features, where customers would have to figure out on their own how to make the necessary purchases from the developer’s website.Īpple updated its App Store Guidelines following the Supreme Court’s decision but with a lot of caveats. The decision meant Apple had to remove the “anti-steering” clause from its agreement with App Store developers. The Ninth Circuit District Court had ruled on one count of out 10 in favor of Epic in its decision, finding that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition law. Though Apple had largely won the case, as the court decided it was not a monopolist, a judge ruled that app makers should be able to steer their customers to the web from links or buttons inside their apps, something that forced Apple to change its App Store rules.īut Apple’s compliance doesn’t give app makers the victory they had hoped, as the tech giant aims to still charge commissions on purchases made outside of apps - a decision Epic aims to challenge in court.Īccording to statements made by Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, shared on X, Apple’s “bad-faith” compliance undermines the judge’s order that would have allowed buttons or external links “in addition to. Fortnite maker Epic Games is not happy about how Apple intends to comply with a district court’s injunction that permitted app developers to direct users to their own websites and payment platforms - a court order that came into effect following the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the Apple antitrust case, leaving the current ruling to stand.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |