> If they decide to ban these kinds of messages, and only enforce link tracking, that would be directly in conflict with the ruling.
Which part of the judgments would that conflict with? Both the District Court’s ruling and the 9th Circuit’s decision that affirms it only speaks of anti-steering, without any qualifications on potential limitations on steering users away
They also both affirm that the commission would still be due and that Apple would have the right to audit to enforce payment of said commission.
Apple, since then, has implemented changes to its policy that allow steering, albeit under circumstances that will enable them to track users using the purchase link and claim commission over sales in the seven days that follow.
Any opposition to these requirements would be met with a “legitimate interest” counterargument, the legitimacy of the interest already being established by the courts by them stating that they still owe Apple a commission.
In layperson’s terms:
The courts have said that Apple can’t prohibit developers from steering users to an alternative purchase flow while simultaneously stating that developers will still owe Apple the commission.
Apple, in response, said: Fine, but we want to be able to track it when you do this and make sure you don’t make it look like the native IAP flow to trick users.
What’s the argument of the developers here? They’re allowed to steer users away to their purchase flow of choice; they just have to do it in a way that makes it easy for Apple to audit the owed commissions.
I can’t imagine the courts frowning upon this, especially when both courts have stated on multiple occasions in their judgment how arduous it would be for both Apple and the developers to ensure payment of commissions if alternative payment methods are utilized.
This alleviates some of those concerns.