Epic v. Apple Decision Is Judicial Overreach, Says ITIF

WASHINGTON—Following the decision by United States District Judge for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to issue a nationwide injunction that includes banning Apple from charging a commission on iOS-derived transactions made off-app to address claimed violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, released the following statement from Joseph V. Coniglio, director of antitrust and innovation:

This is clear judicial overreach. A finding that Apple violated California’s UCL by limiting developers from linking to outside payment methods has somehow turned into a nationwide injunction prohibiting Apple from charging a commission for these transactions.

Antitrust remedies should be designed to prevent the conduct found to be illegal. However, this decision is tantamount to a form of de facto disgorgement by giving developers carte blanche to free ride off Apple’s ecosystem.

Indeed, Apple’s attempt to comply with the court’s injunction through a lower commission rate for these transactions does not reflect “insubordination,” but simply the commonsense expectation that antitrust law does not prevent a company from monetizing its product.

What’s more, the Ninth Circuit has already found that Apple’s limitations on link-outs have procompetitive justifications and do not violate federal antitrust statutes. Something is wrong when state antitrust law so blatantly displaces federal standards.

Just as four years of the Biden administration’s radical antitrust policies have created congressional interest in removing the FTC’s antitrust authority, this decision should be a wake-up call to evaluate whether the Sherman Act ought to preempt such wayward enforcement of state antitrust laws.

Contact: Sydney Mack, [email protected]