Apple Denied Permission to Appeal UK App Store Ruling

[MacRumors]

Apple was today denied permission from the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal to appeal a ruling that found its App Store commission practices to be unlawful and could result in damages of over $1 billion.

The hearing follows a decision made in October by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) saying that Apple unlawfully abused its position in the distribution of iOS apps. The case was brought forward in 2023 on behalf of more than 1,500 UK developers who alleged that Apple charged excessive commission rates on paid apps and in-app purchases.

The tribunal agreed, ruling that Apple holds a monopoly over the sale and distribution of iPhone apps and that its commission structure resulted in higher prices being passed on to consumers. According to the CAT's published judgment, it accepted the claimants' argument that Apple's control over app distribution meant developers had "no economically viable alternative" to the App Store.

The tribunal also cited comments made by Steve Jobs in 2008 that Apple did not intend to profit from the store and aimed only to cover operating costs. That early statement was referenced by the claimants as evidence that Apple's current commission structure had diverged significantly from its initial framing.

The latest hearing sought to establish a methodology for calculating compensation for both developers and affected consumers. Apple used the same hearing to request permission to appeal the October ruling, which was denied. Apple is now entitled to apply directly to the Court of Appeal to challenge the refusal and continue pursuing an appeal of the main ruling.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Denied Permission to Appeal UK App Store Ruling

 

[MacLawyer]

This seems to be a worldwide trend.

 

[spazzcat]

So when are they going to sue the other Stores like gaming systems, etc.

 

[trusso]

Aww, poor Apple.

Okay, everybody, all together now:

Aww, poor Apple.

 

[Gabebear]

So when are they going to sue the other Stores like gaming systems, etc.

I am a little unclear on what law was broken. If this somehow only applies to Apple then that's BS. If it applies to other platforms then I'd think most software distributors are going to be very very worried.

 

[iamgalt]

The tribunal agreed, ruling that Apple holds a monopoly over the sale and distribution of iPhone apps

And Google holds a monopoly over the sale of Android apps, Sony holds a monopoly of playstation apps, and Microsoft holds a monopoly of Xbox apps. So we should soon be hearing about how the UK government is going after every company selling things, right?

 

[spazzcat]

And Google holds a monopoly over the sale of Android apps, Sony holds a monopoly of playstation apps, and Microsoft holds a monopoly of Xbox apps. So we should soon be hearing about how the UK government is going after every company selling things, right?

Any before people say you can sell for exmaple your Xbox game elsewhere you still pay a fee to Microsoft for every game sold as a licensing fee and all systems work like this ...

Price Breakdown Of A $70 Video Game: Digital Vs Physical – Kantan Games Inc. CEO Blog – From Tokyo, Japan

www.serkantoto.com

 

[Hank001]

I am a little unclear on what law was broken.

Uh, the article clearly states "The tribunal agreed, ruling that Apple holds a monopoly over the sale and distribution of iPhone apps and that its commission structure resulted in higher prices being passed on to consumers."

 

[sw1tcher]

So when are they going to sue the other Stores like gaming systems, etc.

And.... Sony holds a monopoly of playstation apps, and Microsoft holds a monopoly of Xbox apps. So we should soon be hearing about how the UK government is going after every company selling things, right?

While I understand the point you're trying to make, most people can get by in the world without a gaming system. You cannot say the same about a smartphone.

Most (a majority of?) people cannot function in society without a smartphone as the world goes more and more digital (e.g. cashless, digital IDs/passports, etc.). I, like many people, also need a smartphone to do my job. A smartphone is a tool. A gaming system is primarily for entertainment.

 

[Ursadorable]

So when are they going to sue the other Stores like gaming systems, etc.

Back in the day (and guessing, still do today), gaming companies had to pay licensing fees to the console manufacturer in order to sell games for said console. I fail to see the difference here. Why wasn't it anti-competitive then, but somehow is now?

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Any before people say you can sell for exmaple your Xbox game elsewhere you still pay a fee to Microsoft for every game sold as a licensing fee and all systems work like this ...

Price Breakdown Of A $70 Video Game: Digital Vs Physical – Kantan Games Inc. CEO Blog – From Tokyo, Japan

www.serkantoto.com

Sure, but you can buy them anywhere.

I can't go to target.com and buy an app for my phone, even if they did pay Apple a fee. Apple getting a cut isn't the issue, it's that you can't buy apps from anywhere other than Apple.

 

[siddavis]

The world is devolving.

 

[siddavis]

Sure, but you can buy them anywhere.

I can't go to target.com and buy an app for my phone, even if they did pay Apple a fee. Apple getting a cut isn't the issue, it's that you can't buy apps from anywhere other than Apple.

Tell that to the folks who have digital only versions of consoles.

 

[Jason2000]

So you agree to the terms and then later decide you don't like it so you file a lawsuit. Ok.

 

[iLondoner]

As a UK citizen I abhor what our government is doing. Without Apple and the App Store the developers wouldn't even have a market for their product.

Next they will go after HP and other printer manufacturers for their expensive locked in ink. But it's the excess profits from ink sales that enables HP to sell an A3/A4 dual-tray duplexing printer with A3 duplex scanner for £195. I remember when the first LaserJet in the UK was £3,000 (about £4,200 at today's money).

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Tell that to the folks who have digital only versions of consoles.

Third party retailers also sell download codes for consoles. That'll work fine for the digital only versions of the consoles.

I cannot sell download codes for my iOS app.

(Would that not be a super simple solution that would allegedly make everyone happy? Any hypothetical benefit of the App Store for consumers is still being delivered, and we decouple having Apple handle payments... Apple could still charge a nominal fee for the infrastructure they provide, but I suspect there's no fee that everyone would agree to.)

 

[surferfb]

Third party retailers also sell download codes for consoles. That'll work fine for the digital only versions of the consoles.

I cannot sell download codes for my iPhone app.

This isn't true anymore, at least for PlayStation.

Edit for link:

PS5 Maker Faces Lawsuit Over So-Called 'Sony Tax' on Digital Games

Company accused of behaving like a monopolist

www.pushsquare.com

 

[turbineseaplane]

As a UK citizen I abhor what our government is doing.

Basically every citizen of every country will end up saying this (about one topic or another) if asked.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Tell that to the folks who have digital only versions of consoles.

Can you only buy the digital-only version? I honestly don't know...not a gamer on any platform, other than board games.

 

[dumastudetto]

I hope Apple appeals the rejected appeal for the right to appeal the original decision that they wanted to appeal.

 

[gluckett]

While I understand the point you're trying to make, most people can get by in the world without a gaming system. You cannot say the same about a smartphone.

Most (a majority of?) people cannot function in society without a smartphone as the world goes more and more digital (e.g. cashless, digital IDs/passports, etc.). I, like many people, also need a smartphone to do my job. A smartphone is a tool. A gaming system is primarily for entertainment.

But you can use that tool without using the app store.

 

[vtrautia]

Apple should just comply with the law. Otherwise these massive fines are keep coming left, right, front and center.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

According to the CAT's published judgment, it accepted the claimants' argument that Apple's control over app distribution meant developers had "no economically viable alternative" to the App Store.

The tribunal also cited comments made by Steve Jobs in 2008 that Apple did not intend to profit from the store and aimed only to cover operating costs. That early statement was referenced by the claimants as evidence that Apple's current commission structure had diverged significantly from its initial framing.

Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

 

[CapitalIdea]

While I understand the point you're trying to make, most people can get by in the world without a gaming system. You cannot say the same about a smartphone.

Most (a majority of?) people cannot function in society without a smartphone as the world goes more and more digital (e.g. cashless, digital IDs/passports, etc.). I, like many people, also need a smartphone to do my job. A smartphone is a tool. A gaming system is primarily for entertainment.

You don't have a human right to an iPhone. Buy something else.

 

[CapitalIdea]

"The tribunal also cited comments made by Steve Jobs in 2008 that Apple did not intend to profit from the store and aimed only to cover operating costs. That early statement was referenced by the claimants as evidence that Apple's current commission structure had diverged significantly from its initial framing."

So the UK basically wants to force Apple's app store to be a de-facto nonprofit entity because of something a dead man said nearly 20 years ago. Got it.