🧠 Food for thought

Implications, context, and why it matters.

Apple faces findings of perjury and anticompetitive intent

• A federal judge found Apple willfully violated a court injunction through its 27% fee and restrictive link designs, not only a dispute over fees 1.
• Internal records say Apple picked what the court called its “most anticompetitive option”. Staff also discussed using confusing wording to “‘scare’ users” away from external payment links 1.
• The court said an apple executive lied under oath about when the 27% fee was set and why. The judge referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office (the federal prosecutor) to consider criminal contempt for Apple and the executive 1.
• Microsoft and Spotify, plus state enforcers, filed legal briefs that support Epic’s position 2.

The dispute reaches beyond apps into AI and future platforms

• Apple argues the commission is a fee for “ecosystem access” rather than payment processing. That framing matters to its long-term strategy 3.
• Apple’s Supreme Court appeal seeks a precedent that lets platforms set ecosystem commission rates even when a transaction happens elsewhere 3.
• If Apple wins, it could extend similar fees to purchases made through emerging tech. One example involves AI assistants that complete transactions outside the usual App Store interface 3.
• The U.S. fight runs alongside pressure abroad, including the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), a European Union law that limits the market power of large online platforms. The DMA pushed Apple to change EU fees and add extra charges under some conditions 4.