The information: U.S. Federal Judge and Epic Games contest whether Apple has complied with an Order to allow payment steering -

Hearing for an evidentiary hearing regarding the Epic Games v. Apple trial will determine if Apple has truly complied to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' order for developers of apps to "steer" users towards payments from third party providers which aren't available on the App Store's native App Store.

The hearing on Apple's subsequent compliance began on May 8. AP is reporting the judge Gonzalez Rogers " questioned whether Apple puts up with an avalanche of barriers in place to prevent users from using alternative payments within iPhone apps," in defiance of court's order.

HTML1 Hearing focused on whether Apple Policy Is Still Anti-Steering

The AP report adds that Judge Gonzalez Rogers' tone suggested Apple's decisions have been focused in ensuring Apple's profit margins, rather than complying with the intention of her decision to allow steering and increase iPhone users' capability of switching easily between different in-app payment options. The article points out that, according to Epic accounts, Apple is still blocking developers from redirecting customers to different payment options that are less costly alternatives.

The AP report continues to say that at the hearing Apple Chief Executive Officer for the iPhone App Store, Matthew Fischer, disclosed that Apple had only accepted and approved applications for 38 applications that display the hyperlinks to various payment methods, "a fraction of the approximately two million iPhone applications that are available across the U.S."

PC Mag points out that the low number of applications (38 of the 65,000 app creators who offer in-app purchasesmost likely because of the cost of the 27 percent Apple fee and the additional cost of credit card fees is likely to result in a higher overall cost to creators.

Apple Executive 'Unaware' of a Higher Total Cost Problem

An LAW360 article from May 10, 2015 details the proceedings that took place as Epic lawyer Yonatan Even and the judge Gonzalez Rogers questioned Apple Finance Vice President Alex Roman. Even mentioned the lower rate of 3% from Apple that's 27 percent for transactions that take place outside the app on Apple devices, in contrast to the standard in-app 30-percent fee and then Epic also provided evidence that the price for payment inside the U.S. is 3.5 percent, and included a yoga app CEO who testified that he pays 3.5 percent to 6.5 fees for payment processing. Following that, Roman said he was unaware of the issue, Even reiterated that the goal was to set a fee that would allow the developers to provide users with a better price when he asked Roman whether he was aware of this. A judge Gonzalez Rogers is quoted as telling Roman that "'It appears that you made lots of decisions with any information or data that you could have used. It sounds as if you're trying to protect ... the income that you previously earned.'" Get the LAW360 report by clicking here.

I'm pleased to the Judge side with Epic

Chief Executive Officer David Nachman states that "We're happy to see that the judge agree in favor of Epic in this case We're confident that this tribunal will be able to oblige Apple to let steering be allowed for developers of games and applications without the need for fees and limits. Its aim is to facilitate to conduct worldwide transactions both for software and digital product companies. We're also together with our customers in celebrating the steps towards an open and accessible commerce experience on mobile devices."

Additional Antitrust Action against Apple It was initiated by the US Justice Department

In addition to the Epic Games case, the U.S. Justice Department launched an antitrust case against Apple in March 2024 and asserted that Apple is the sole dominant company in the smartphone market, including (among other things) regarding electronic payments.

For more information:

 Information from industry and opinions:

 About

Article was first seen on here