In a decisive ruling, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers condemned Apple for not following a previous order to change its App Store policies. Nearly four years post-verdict against the tech giant, the judge emphasized that Apple had deliberately chosen anti-competitive paths to adhere to the ruling. Although Apple was mandated to allow developers the option to redirect users for external purchases, it exploited vague terms in the injunction to retain its commission fees. The judge's new orders reflect the court's unyielding stance on enforcing compliance.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers noted Apple's deliberate choices to remain noncompliant with the court order, indicating that the company's actions reflected an intention to flout the law.
The court found that Apple chose an anticompetitive strategy at every turn, opting for methods that ultimately undermined the mandated changes to the App Store.
Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had been trying to navigate around the original court order with vague policies, completely disregarding the intent of the injunction.
Apple's internal notes reveal an organized approach to limit the court's ruling, showcasing a calculated effort to maintain its commission from developers despite legal obligations.
Collection
[
|
...
]