How Apple Sparked Legal Confusion in Its Courtroom Victory

Weeks after a federal appellate court mandated that Apple loosen the reins of CEO Tim Cook, his senior associate deliberated on the next steps.

For over ten years, Apple has insisted that apps utilize the App Store payment system, collecting a 30% commission on sales. However, in 2023, the court ruled that apps could bypass Apple’s payment system and allow users to purchase directly. Cook sought clarity on whether Apple could still impose fees on these sales without breaching the court’s directive.

Phil Schiller, responsible for overseeing the App Store, expressed concerns that the revised fees might be unlawful. He supported direct online sales without Apple’s commission. Luca Maestri, the company’s financial head, disagreed, advocating for a 27% commission to safeguard the business.

Ultimately, Cook sided with Maestri, attempting to rationalize this decision. A federal judge criticized the company in a recent ruling, accusing it of fabricating independent economic research to validate its choices and withholding thousands of documents under claims of attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, at least one executive allegedly misled the court.

The judge’s ruling, alongside witness testimonies this year and company documents disclosed Thursday, highlights the extreme measures Apple has taken to maintain every cent accrued from the App Store. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the initial lawsuit from Epic Games in 2020, could inadvertently impact Apple’s operations and hurt its credibility as scrutiny around the business intensifies.

Additionally, the company faces multiple legal challenges, including an antitrust lawsuit from the Department of Justice, which accuses it of maintaining a monopoly with its iPhone. Class Action Lawsuits from U.S. app developers and regulatory scrutiny from the U.K., Spain, and potentially China.

Mark A. Remley, a professor at Stanford Law, noted, “If you lose credibility with the court, the next judge may be less forgiving.” This situation could prompt future judges to suspect dishonesty during Apple’s subsequent cases.

Google’s corporate dealings have similarly cast a shadow over its legal processes. A recent judge noted in an antitrust case regarding Google’s advertising technology, the company’s attempts to obscure communications raised concerns about its adherence to court mandates.

In response to Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ ruling, Apple plans to appeal, asserting that the findings were “unjust” and deeming delays to the court order necessary. The company declined to provide further comments on this report.

In 2020, Epic, the creator of Fortnite, filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging antitrust violations related to the mandated use of the App Store payment system. Although Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled in Apple’s favor, asserting it wasn’t a monopoly, she highlighted that Apple breached California competition laws by requiring developers to use the App Store for software and services.

To comply with the court’s orders, Apple initiated a project termed “Wisconsin.” Two solutions were explored: one that would allow apps to include links for online purchases at designated locations without fees, and another that would require the app to charge a 27% commission for providing those links.

Without commissions and fees, Apple estimated potential losses totaling hundreds of millions, even exceeding a billion dollars. Opting for the 27% fee would minimize their losses.

In a June 2023 meeting, Cook evaluated commission options ranging from 20–27%. He reviewed analyses indicating that with a 27% commission, Apple could potentially lose its payment system while ultimately endorsing a plan that limited where app links for online purchases could be placed.

Consequently, Apple enlisted an economic consultancy to author reports to substantiate these fees, concluding that its developer tools and distribution services exceed 30% of an app’s revenue.

Apple also instituted a warning screen for online purchases. Cook instructed the team to enhance the warning to emphasize Apple’s commitment to privacy and security. “Rather than terminating their relationship with Apple, the company cannot be held accountable for the privacy or security of transactions made online,” he stated.

After introducing the 27% commission in January 2024, Epic brought Apple back to court, arguing it was not complying with the judge’s orders. Judge Gonzalez Rogers summoned both Apple and Epic to court, where Treasury VP Alex Roman testified that the commission had been finalized on January 16, 2024. Executives revealed that the consultancy report influenced the commission fee setting.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed skepticism about Apple’s honesty and demanded documentation regarding their compliance. Apple submitted 89,000 documents, a third of which were marked confidential. The court dismissed these claims as “baseless,” stating Apple pressured them into concealing more than half the documents.

The findings indicated that Rome lied under oath, that the consultancy report was “deceptive,” and that Apple “willfully” ignored the court’s directives, as termed by Judge Gonzalez Rogers. She characterized this as “concealment.”

Her ruling may empower prosecutors, regulators, and judges in similar ongoing cases against Apple across the globe, according to various antitrust professors and lawyers.

When the company attempts to edit or conceal documents, it may draw the attention of prosecutors and judges to strategize against such “tactics to delay litigation,” especially in the Epic Games case. During testimonies, the credibility of Apple executives was called into question as it became apparent the company “conceals the truth.”

In other cases regarding Apple, such as the Department of Justice antitrust lawsuits, Colin Kass, an antitrust attorney for Proskauer Rose, indicated that the process will begin with a firm statement against Apple’s past tactics. “I won’t entertain any games they’ve played before,” he stated.

The company remains cautious regarding both the Justice Department’s lawsuit and its defense, noted Vanderbilt University law professor Rebecca Ho Allensworth, who studies antitrust. Apple previously claimed that green bubbles in messages from Android users were due to safety concerns. However, she suggested such claims may now be viewed skeptically following the recent ruling.

Allensworth remarked that the judges’ opinions could influence App Store practices, leading to enforced resolutions akin to those from the European Union, the U.K., and Spain—to guarantee regulatory and court confidence.

“Apple behaves as though it operates above the law,” she asserted. “This sends a clear message that such behavior is unacceptable.”