This comes as no surprise to anyone paying attention to the case. From the appeals court:
Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court’s determination that Epic Games, Inc. failed to show Apple’s conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. See City of San Jose v. Off. of the Com’r of Baseball, 776 F.3d 686, 691–92 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[U]nder California law ‘[i]f the same conduct is alleged to be both an antitrust violation and an “unfair” business act or practice for the same reason—because it unreasonably restrains competition and harms consumers—the determination that the conduct is not an unreasonable restraint of trade necessarily implies that the conduct is not “unfair” toward consumers.’” (quoting Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp., 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 175, 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001))).
In other words, if the appeals court agrees with the district court that federal antitrust laws were not violated (which is very likely) then they're going to overturn the UCL judgement as well.
There you have it. It is obvious that this whole 'lawsuit' was going to be a complete victory for Apple even if the required changes came to effect since they were entitled to collect the 30% through whatever means.
So once again this comes to no surprise. Even when the Verge continuously reported false news about the ruling from the start.
> Apple can maintain its App Store payment monopoly while the case proceeds
Literally both judges said it was NOT a monopoly, and the ruling is not "apple must stop being a monopoly" (which is the only way that sub-headline makes sense).
Is this a kind of "manifest destiny" kind of thing, where they are trying to will it into existence?
The two judges are saying it isn’t a monopoly. That doesn’t not make it a monopoly. There are countless things the status quo officially allows or says things are a certain way. That does not make it true.
Judges and many influentials in the Justice system repeatedly give almost no punishments to white collar crime. Yet the same people many times say justice is being served in the country.
A more direct example: Courts still rule that gerrymandering for the purpose of screwing over the other party is allowed. Of course wink wink they say it isn’t allowed. However some basic obvious lying is all that’s required to allow this.
It’s still politically motivated and undemocratic gerrymandering/voter suppression. Regardless of what judges or the Justice system says.
Laws and the Justice system are just that. They aren’t beacons of principle or morality.
Nobody said Apple doesn't have a monopoly on App Store payments. I'd be shocked if even Apple tried to argue that, because it's obviously false. They determined Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile gaming (iirc); the scoping of the two statements is quite different.
Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court’s determination that Epic Games, Inc. failed to show Apple’s conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. See City of San Jose v. Off. of the Com’r of Baseball, 776 F.3d 686, 691–92 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[U]nder California law ‘[i]f the same conduct is alleged to be both an antitrust violation and an “unfair” business act or practice for the same reason—because it unreasonably restrains competition and harms consumers—the determination that the conduct is not an unreasonable restraint of trade necessarily implies that the conduct is not “unfair” toward consumers.’” (quoting Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp., 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 175, 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001))).
In other words, if the appeals court agrees with the district court that federal antitrust laws were not violated (which is very likely) then they're going to overturn the UCL judgement as well.