A federal judge from Oakland (California) accused Apple on Wednesday, April 30, not to fulfill his decision, was issued more than three years ago and theoretically forces him to open the iPhone to competition stores to his own.
In September 2021, Judge Yvonne González Rogers had estimated that Apple’s firm could no longer impose on application editors to go through the App Store, on Apple Store online, as well as for its payment system.
This trial resulted from a procedure initiated by the epic video game editor, creating in particular the Fortnite game, which reproached the Cupertino (California) group of abuse of a dominant position and for assuming too high commissions.
New “barriers against competition”
But according to the judge, “Apple has chosen not to comply with the court order of this Court,” he wrote in a decision of April 30, and “created new anti-select barriers to preserve a beautiful source of income.”
On the basis of his findings, Yvonne González Rogers will present a report with the federal prosecutor of northern California, Patrick Robbins, to determine if the criminal procedures must participate against Apple.
The judge pointed out that after his initial decision, Apple had imposed a commission for transactions made outside his store (up to 27%), which did not exist before. According to her, the company has used technical messages and tools to “deter users from making their purchases in another way” than in the App Store.
The judge affirms that the Apple chief Tim Cook has overlooked the advice of a historical framework of the group, Phil Schiller, who suggested applying the terms of the sentence. She also accuses a manager of Apple’s finance service of having lied to the Court while he was heard under oath.
In his decision, the judge remarkably orders Apple not to take any commission on transactions made outside his application store. She also intimidated him not to send a message to users who wish to go through a store or a third party application, except to tell them that they do not pass through the App Store.
Requested by AFP, Apple did not follow up immediately. The group had appealed the initial judgment before the Supreme Court, but the highest American court had refused to resume the file.
In electronic exchanges after the fence of Wall Street, Apple’s title left more than 1%.
Source: BFM TV
