We now turn to Apple’s cross-appeal, beginning with its arguments concerning the UCL. The district court found that Epic suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, concluded that Apple’s anti-steering provision violates the UCL’s unfair prong, and entered an injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing the anti-steering provision against any developer. Apple challenges each aspect on appeal. We affirm.
i.e., the District Court found Apple to be violating CA Unfair Competition Law which Apple had appealed and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concurs with the district court.
Consequence of this ruling is limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users is unlawful. As a result, alternate payment methods can no longer be restricted by Apple.
That's the gist of the judgement as it pertains to anti-steering.
I am unsure if Apple has changed their review guidelines to comply with this judgement yet.
Comments
IANAL.
From the ruling [1], the only thing Apple lost.
i.e., the District Court found Apple to be violating CA Unfair Competition Law which Apple had appealed and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concurs with the district court.
Consequence of this ruling is limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users is unlawful. As a result, alternate payment methods can no longer be restricted by Apple.
That's the gist of the judgement as it pertains to anti-steering.
I am unsure if Apple has changed their review guidelines to comply with this judgement yet.
[1]: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...