Original title: Epic case verdict: Apple IncRelax payment restrictions, "Apple Inc tax" may be hit

Apple Inc's App Store management policy has been torn open by Epic Games, and the "Apple Inc tax" may be hit.

On September 10, US time, a US federal judge ruled on the legal action between Apple Inc and Epic Games. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction saying that Apple Inc would no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications.

The ban resolves long-standing developer complaints and increases the possibility that developers may direct their users to their websites to subscribe to or buy digital content, thereby avoiding being charged "Apple Inc tax". The ruling is believed to have hurt Apple Inc's App Store sales, which were estimated at $64 billion in 2020. Apple Inc usually takes 15 to 30 per cent of total sales.

Affected by the news, Apple Inc's share price fell more than 3% in Friday trading, the biggest drop since May. Investors believe the ruling could deal a major blow to Apple Inc's lucrative App Store business.

Rogers wrote: "the court concluded that Apple Inc's reversal clause hid key information from consumers and illegally strangled consumers' choices." Coupled with Apple Inc's initial anti-monopoly violations, these anti-guidance provisions are anti-competitive, and it is necessary to take remedial measures nationwide to eliminate these provisions. " The ban will take effect in December.

However, Mr Rogers said Apple Inc was not a monopolist and "success is not illegal". "given the trial records, the court could not finally conclude that Apple Inc was a monopolist under federal or state antitrust laws," Rogers wrote. "

The ruling also ends the first part of the battle between the two companies over Apple Inc's App Store policy and whether they stifle competition. Apple Inc won nine of the 10 charges but was found to be involved in anti-competitive behaviour under California law.

The Epic Games v. Apple Inc case was held in Oakland, Calif., in May and included two chief executives testifying in open court. The two companies have previously said they would appeal regardless of the verdict.

However, the two companies reacted differently to the court's decision.

"We are very satisfied with the court's decision, and we think it is a great victory for Apple Inc," said Kate Adams, general counsel to Apple Inc. "

A spokeswoman for Epic Games said she would appeal the decision.

Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Epic Games, criticised the ruling in a statement on social networks. "Today's ruling is not a victory for developers or consumers," Sweeney said on Twitter.It says. "Epic is fighting for a level playing field between intra-app payment methods and app stores for 1 billion consumers."

According to legal disclosure, Sweeney was dissatisfied with Apple Inc's in-app purchase rules as early as 2015, and the public conflict between the two companies began in August 2020, when Epic implemented a plan called "Project Liberty" to challenge Apple Inc.

Epic wants to be allowed to install its own app store on iPhone so it can bypass Apple Inc's cuts and charge its own fees for the games it distributes. But Friday's ruling did not allow Epic to provide an app store on Apple's App Store.

Epic's most popular game is Fortnite (Fortnite), which makes money when players buy game currencies such as V-bucks or clothing. If you can plant your own app store in iPhone, you can avoid being charged "Apple Inc tax".

Since the end of the trial but before the verdict, Apple Inc has made several changes to appease critics, some of which are part of a settlement with other app developers, including relaxing some rules on sending emails to customers to encourage them to make non-app purchases and allowing links in some apps.

In response to the judge's ruling, Wall Street analysts believe that the financial impact of the ban on Apple Inc will be limited.

Developers can only use links and are not allowed to build their own alternative payment mechanisms in third-party applications, which limits the effect of the ban, according to a person familiar with Apple Inc's thinking. Because for consumers, Apple Inc's in-app payment is still easier than putting credit card information on other websites.

JPMorgan Chase & CoAnalyst Samik Chatterjee said the ruling did not change the bank's outlook for Apple Inc's services or App Store business, noting that the decision did not recommend a change in the "Apple Inc tax" ratio of 30 per cent, but only launched the first stage of multiple litigation steps.

Gene Munster, founder of Loup Ventures and longtime analyst at Apple Inc, said that in a worst-case scenario, it could reduce Apple Inc's earnings by 4 per cent next year, but it is more likely to have an impact of close to 1 per cent.

Epic Games also sued Alphabet Inc-CL CThe Play store that controls Android phones. The case has not yet been heard.