Fortnite maker Epic Games is preparing to fight Apple in court over how Apple has chosen to comply with a court order that required the tech giant to change its App Store rules. A district court judge in Northern California ruled that app developers should be able to point their users to links or buttons that connected to their websites, where their customers could learn about other ways to pay for apps beyond Apple’s in-app purchase in the antitrust case filed by Epic Games. Apple decided to enable links that are such but said it would still take a 27% commission on those sales — a decision that Epic dubbed a case of “malicious compliance.”

The Injunction on Apple’s “anti-steering rule,” as it’s called, came about after both ongoing functions appealed the region court’s ruling. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling that is original which Apple had largely won, as the court ruled it was not a monopolist engaging in anticompetitive behavior. However, it did say that Apple would have to update its App Store Guidelines’ anti-steering clause.

After the Supreme Court in January declined to hear the antitrust case, the lower court’s ruling stood.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney had blasted Apple over its compliance, calling it written in “bad faith” and saying it “totally undermines the order.” He said Epic planned to challenge Apple in court over the matter.

Now Epic has filed a notice of non-compliance with the District Court of Northern California which advises the court that Epic “disputes Apple’s purported compliance” with the injunction. It also noted that Epic plans to file a motion to demonstrate the issues with Apple’s terms that are new require relief.

Apple recorded its “Notice of Compliance” utilizing the judge on January 16, 2024, where it described exactly how its App that is new Store Guidelines would work. That it would allow app developers to promote their subscriptions on the web, but with a 27% commission rate instead of 30% in it, the company explained. For designers that are section of Apple’s Small company system or whom provide auto-renewing subscriptions in two, the fee is reduced to 12% instead of 15% year. That 3% discount in many cases wouldn’t cover the developer even’s repayment handling charges. This means, they’dn’t conserve money by changing with their very own repayment methods. In reality, they may also become having to pay a lot more than through Apple’s purchases that are in-app

However, Apple believes it’s owed a commission because of the investment it makes in its iOS platform, developer tools and App Store, which go beyond the payment processing fee. This view of its value was also visible in its response to the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), a regulation that is new forces it to permit alternative app shops and 3rd party payments, on top of other things. Apple revealed a complex system which involves decreased commissions, but tacks on an innovative new “core technology fee” which will make up because of its losings, arguably it would also require developers to

, maintaining control over the process because of said investments.

In addition to the 3% discount Apple agreed to, following the Epic case, Apple said. After implementation, developers have to submit transaction reports within 15 days of a calendar month’s end to document their sales. Apple takes its 27% commission on transactions for digital goods and services that took place in a period that is 7-day a user taps a web link.

Plus, whenever pressing the backlinks, Apple will pop-up scare that is new” that warn customers they’re about to go to an external website and that Apple is not responsible for the privacy or security of those external purchases.

Notice of Non-compliance and Intent to Move to Enforce Ucl InjunctionIt’s unclear how Epic will craft its argument that Apple’s compliance is unfair or unjust as the court earlier said it wouldn’t micro-manage Apple’s creation of a policy that is new. It doesn’t have anything further to share at this time about the nature of its coming complaint.(* while it’s clear that Apple is following the letter of the law, but not the spirit, that may not be enough for Epic to prevail.

Reached for comment, Epic says) by

on Scribd(*) (*)