The judge in Epic v. Apple thinks Apple’s being shady about buttons and links

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the ongoing court case between Epic Games and Apple, where they are having evidentiary hearings over whether Apple violated the anti-steering injunction set down by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 after their landmark trial. The hearings are focused on the details of Apple's App Store guidelines, particularly around restrictions on button styles for links that go outside of their in-app payment system. The article highlights a comment made by Judge Rogers that suggests she may not see a logical competitive reason for Apple's demands, other than to stifle competition.

🙋 Q&A

[01] Evidentiary Hearings

1. What is the focus of the evidentiary hearings between Epic Games and Apple?

• The hearings are focused on the details of Apple's App Store guidelines, particularly around restrictions on button styles for links that go outside of their in-app payment system.

2. What was Judge Rogers' comment that suggests she may rule against Apple?

• Judge Rogers stated: "I can't imagine a logical reason why Apple would demand that of competitor apps. What's a logical competitive reason, not for suggesting it, but demanding it? ... Other than to stifle competition, I see no other answer. Can you give me one?"

[02] Implications of the Hearings

1. How do the hearings and Judge Rogers' comment suggest the potential outcome of the case?

• The article notes that nobody wants to opine on how a judge will rule, especially not based on a single comment in an evidentiary hearing. However, Judge Rogers' comment questioning Apple's rationale for their App Store guidelines restrictions does not look good for Apple and suggests she may rule against them.