Apple’s 27% response to the Supreme Court decision is baiting antitrust regulators<div class="feat-image">
</div><p><a href="
https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/16/supreme-court-apple-vs-epic-ruling-app-store-payment-links/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The US Supreme Court yesterday decided[/url] that the original ruling in the <a href="
https://9to5mac.com/guides/epic-games/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Epic Games[/url] case should stand – and <a href="
https://9to5mac.com/guides/aapl/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Apple’s[/url] response to the <a href="
https://9to5mac.com/guides/antitrust/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">antitrust[/url] ruling has been uncompromising, to put it politely.</p>
<p>The company’s announcement that it will allow external payments but <a href="
https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/16/apple-revises-us-app-store-rules-to-let-developers-link-to-outside-payment-methods-but-it-will-still-charge-a-commission/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">still claim a 27% commission on sales[/url] made outside the App Store is effectively Apple giving the middle finger not just to Epic Games – which may be understandable – but also to the court which made the original ruling, and to antitrust regulators … </p>
<a href="
https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/17/apple-response-to-supreme-court/#more-928583" data-post-id="928583" data-layer-pagetype="post" data-layer-postcategory="aapl,antitrust,app-store,epic-games,opinion" data-layer-viewtype="unknown" class="more-link">moreâ
Apple’s 27% response to the Supreme Court decision is baiting antitrust regulators
