Apple Faces Developer Lawsuit After Defying App Store Injunction - MacRumors
Skip to Content

Apple Faces Developer Lawsuit After Defying App Store Injunction

by

Apple is being sued by developers unhappy with the company's "willful violation" of the anti-steering injunction the court ordered as part of its legal battle with Epic Games. A company called Pure Sweat Basketball has teamed up with law firm Hagens Berman to file a class-action lawsuit against Apple in an attempt to win some money for developers.

apple developer banner
The lawsuit focuses on the recent Apple vs. ‌Epic Games‌ decision where Apple was found to be in contempt of court. Back in 2021, Apple was ordered to relax its anti-steering rules that prevent developers from directing customers to purchase options outside of the App Store. Because of appeals, Apple didn't have to comply until January 17, 2024, but when it did, Apple did so in a way that the court said was anticompetitive.

Apple forced developers to pay between 12 and 27 percent in commission when customers made a purchase through an app using an external payment link, which was an issue because developers also had to pay payment processors. Apple also had strict rules allowing only a single link and it used scare screens to try to prevent customers from making purchases outside of the ‌App Store‌.

Apple last week was forced to change its U.S. ‌App Store‌ policies to support external payment links in apps with no restrictions, a decision that Apple is appealing, but the class action lawsuit argues that developers should be compensated for the trouble. It claims that Apple's moves to circumvent the injunction cost developers "billions of dollars" in revenue.

Due to Apple's anti-steering implementation, only 34 developers of 136,000 took advantage of the external payment link option before the terms were changed last week, and the lawsuit is seeking restitution for all U.S. developers who offered in-app purchases for non-zero prices between January 17, 2024 and when Apple fully complied with the original injunction.

Apple should be forced to disgorge all of its "ill-gotten gains," according to the lawsuit. The law firm that's handling the case, Hagens Berman, previously secured a $100 million settlement for developers over Apple's ‌App Store‌ fees.

Tags: App Store, Apple Lawsuits

Top Rated Comments

M
MTWomg
12 months ago

Just think, Apple could have avoided all this by listening to Phil
Or by listening to the Judge! Crazy idea, I know.
Score: 40 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Chungry Avatar
Chungry
12 months ago
Just think, Apple could have avoided all this by listening to Phil
Score: 35 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sw1tcher Avatar
sw1tcher
12 months ago

People or businesses who bring lawsuits should be forced to pay all legal fees for both parties when they lose. This might hit some of that in the head. Not sure if this will go anywhere though.
That'd be unfair to the little guy who has a legitimate case, but loses because he doesn't have the deep pockets to hire a team of lawyers like Apple does.

You see this sometimes in criminal cases where someone is innocent but is found guilty because he has to use a public defender that's overwhelmed by excessive case loads and so underfunded that the lawyer cannot hire all the people needed to conduct proper investigations.
Score: 32 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Hajj.david Avatar
Hajj.david
12 months ago

Another frivolous lawsuit. What it with these greedy software developers like Epic? Why do they think they shouldn’t have to play commissions to the retailers that sell their products and services for them?

Let’s remember — all of these Apple features benefit *consumers*. That’s who the law is supposed to protect, not greedy developers like Tim Sweeney and company.
Our app cannot use in app purchases because Apple does not offer metered billing, in addition IAP are limited to $999 whereas some of our clients are paying 3k-5k a month. So by every account IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for our business to use in app purchases. We fought with apple for MONTHS to even allow our app on the app store. Finally they agreed IF and only IF:
[LIST=1]
* We do not allow users to sign up in app, they have to sign up from our website.
* We DO NOT LINK our website ANYWHERE within the app
* We cannot allow users to manage their license (cancel, change, etc) within the app NOR can we send them a link to show them WHERE to do this.

This forced us to have to call customers or have them call us to resolve super simple things like changing a credit card. Apple's rules were ridiculous, abusive (imagine taking 30% of 5k!) and to add further insult to injury Apple took FORTY-FIVE days to pay out. Stripe pays in 1-3 business days and takes 3%, and they have a better built in SDK that Apple. The only one who was greedy was Apple, Phil even warned that charging 30% is insane.
Score: 21 Votes (Like | Disagree)
M
MTWomg
12 months ago
Apple is in the 'find out' phase of '**** around, find out'. Don't want to get sued? Don't engage in malicious compliance. More of this is to come.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Macaholic868 Avatar
Macaholic868
12 months ago
Wonderful news! Apple has clearly been in the wrong for years now since the initial judgement against it, having done just about everything in its power to violate the spirit of previous attempts by the court to remedy the situation. So much so that the judge had clearly had enough of their games this time around.

Apple has gone so far as to apparently either condone, or at a minimum to turn a blind eye to, one executive outright lying on the stand.

Given all of that I’ve got no problem with developers filing a massive lawsuit against Apple. They deserve it, they have deep enough pockets that they can afford it and hitting them in the wallet may be the only way to get them to take judicial orders seriously.

I’d argue that some actual jail time for the executive(s) who lied would be the most effective at deterring this kind of behavior moving forward but Apple’s actions cost developers money so Apple needs to not only make said developers whole financially but also needs to put up enough to cover their legal expenses and any other indirect damages suffered from their anti-competitive actions.
Score: 17 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Read All Comments