BittySon

davidw said:

chasm said:

For those who might be disappointed by the latest in a string of defeats for Epic:

Take a really good, hard, objective look at what this company has done, said, and plans to do, along with who has controlling interest in it. Read the stories on this very site about how Epic was fined millions for shady behaviour wrt in-app purchases.

I think you’ll find that that Epic is not the “freedom fighter” you might imagine it is.

Likewise, the original judge in this case correctly ruled *against* Apple’s anti-steering provisions IMO, and since no court has overturned that ruling either, this case also stopped Apple from anti-competitive behaviour in that regard as well.

The thing is that Federal Judge ruled that Apple "anti-steering" policy violated the CA Unfair Competition Law not any Federal anti-competition laws. First, it's questionable that this judgement can force Apple to adhere to the CA UCL, in every State. Each State have their own anti-competition laws that don't necessarily agree with other States anti-competition laws. This was one of complaints Apple addressed with their appeal. How can a Federal Judge force Apple to comply with a CA law, in every US State? It would be different if Apple anti-steering policies violated Federal anti-competition or anti-trust laws. So on the surface, Apple might only have to allow developers to inform customers of other method of payments (within their apps) or allow links to them, only in CA. 

And second, the CA Unfair Competition Law is a vague catch-all law for when a company haven't been found to be violating any actual anti-trust or anti-competition laws, but the courts still thinks that the company behavior or practice is "unfair" to its competitors or consumers. The courts gets to decide what constitute "unfair".  There is no law that clearly states that Apple "anti-steering" policy is anti-competitive.