{"id":54018,"date":"2025-05-01T15:02:18","date_gmt":"2025-05-01T13:02:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=54018"},"modified":"2025-05-01T15:26:20","modified_gmt":"2025-05-01T13:26:20","slug":"apple-loses-in-court-changes-to-the-app-store-necessary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/apple-verliert-vor-gericht-aenderungen-im-app-store-noetig","title":{"rendered":"Apple loses in court: App Store changes necessary"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple is forced to adapt its App Store model under pressure from a US court. The dispute with Epic Games, which has been ongoing since 2020, is now bringing about profound changes \u2013 and could be a turning point in Apple's digital business model. The rules of the game in the App Store are changing significantly for developers and users.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For years, Apple has been criticized for its App Store fee policy. The accusation is that Apple earns a disproportionate share of its revenue from apps by charging up to 30 percent for each transaction. Epic Games, known for Fortnite, has publicly opposed this so-called "Apple Tax" \u2013 and ultimately pursued legal action. The outcome is now clear: Apple must change its behavior. Immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How it all began: Epic vs. Apple<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In August 2020, Epic integrated its own payment function into Fortnite \u2013 bypassing Apple's system and without the usual commission. Apple reacted promptly: Fortnite was removed from the App Store. Epic filed a lawsuit that same day. The central allegation was that Apple was behaving like a monopolist and abusing its market position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First ruling in 2021: No monopoly, but with conditions<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In 2021, the court ruled that Cupertino was not legally a monopolist. Nevertheless, Apple was required to allow developers to integrate external links or buttons to their own payment pages into their apps. This would allow users to pay outside of the App Store in the future. This fundamentally called into question Apple's revenue model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple's implementation: formally correct, content controversial<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Cupertino implemented this requirement, but on its own terms. Developers were allowed to integrate external links, but still had to pay a 27 percent share of the revenue \u2013 even if the sale took place outside the App Store. Apple also introduced a complex audit system that allowed developers to be extensively monitored to ensure they adhered to the rules. It also implemented so-called "scare screens" \u2013 warnings designed to discourage users from clicking on external links. These measures resulted in few developers taking advantage of the new option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New ruling: Apple deliberately circumvented regulations<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Epic filed an appeal against this implementation. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers ruled in Epic's favor on all counts. She argued that Apple had deliberately undermined the initial ruling. The warnings, hidden costs, and complicated terms were deliberately designed to discourage external payment methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new requirements: Immediately and without appeal<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The judge gave Apple clear instructions that must be implemented immediately. Apple may:<\/p>\n\n\n\n