> We now turn to Apple’s cross-appeal, beginning with its arguments concerning the UCL. The district court found that Epic suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, concluded that Apple’s anti-steering provision violates the UCL’s unfair prong, and entered an injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing the anti-steering provision against any developer. Apple challenges each aspect on appeal. We affirm.
i.e., the District Court found Apple to be violating CA Unfair Competition Law which Apple had appealed and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concurs with the district court.
Consequence of this ruling is limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users is unlawful. As a result, alternate payment methods can no longer be restricted by Apple.
The question of commission (30%) still remains because the ruling is silent on it except for observing what the district court said.
> Because the district court accepted only a general version of Apple’s IP-compensation rationale (that Apple was entitled to “some compensation”), Epic at step three needed only to fashion a less-restrictive alternative calibrated to achieving that general goal, instead of one achieving the level of compensation that Apple currently achieves through its 30% commission.
My reading of this is that the 30% commission can come under challenge from another plaintiff. Epic took a different tactic on this specific argument and failed to establish it. However, the Appeals court's observaton seems to indicate there is legal room for a challenger to attack this.
[1]: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...