Meta, Microsoft, X, and Match Group file an amicus brief in Epic v. Apple protesting Apple's plan to charge a commission for payments made outside the App Store
Wall Street Journal
Context & Ripple Effects
The filing extends a long-running Epic challenge to Apple’s App Store rules. Microsoft had already joined states and the DOJ in supporting Epic’s appeal, making this coalition a continuation of broader developer and platform opposition rather than an isolated dispute.
The issue is whether payments routed outside Apple’s storefront can still carry an Apple commission. That question sits at the center of the app-economy conflict examined during the original Epic-Apple trial.
First-order effects
Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Group put their legal weight behind Epic’s objection to Apple’s proposed external-payment commission, strengthening the record against Apple’s approach.
Apple must defend not only its ability to permit outside payment links, but also the economics of charging for transactions completed beyond the App Store.
Second-order effects
Developers and app operators gain support for challenging terms that can preserve a platform charge even after payment processing shifts elsewhere.
Rival mobile distribution and gaming initiatives have a clearer interest in the outcome: Microsoft later tied Apple’s conduct to delays around its planned Xbox mobile store in its own Epic-supporting brief.
Third-order effects
If courts continue to scrutinize commissions on off-store transactions, platform control may shift from a simple storefront fee toward more contested rules over access, attribution and distribution.
The growing amicus coalition suggests App Store pricing is becoming an industry-wide platform-governance issue, not solely a dispute between Apple and one game publisher.
The trend: This is one data point in the widening challenge to mobile platform gatekeepers’ ability to monetize transactions that occur outside their own checkout systems.
I have said this before, but apps are becoming the white hot center of global regulation and court cases and it's a mess. I'm here for the mess, and we could see more interesting experiments with app business models/distribution than we have in a decade. https://www.wsj.com/...
By that logic it should be okay to steal from rich people coz it won't affect their bottom line so much It's rent seeking behavior without allowing such big companies to implement their own payments and forcing everyone to go through Apple. How is that so hard to grasp?
Microsoft is the world's most valuable company and Facebook (derogatory term for Meta, not the blue app) is No. 7. But sure, explain to me how paying 30 percent hurts your bottom line *so* much.
No one filed an amicus brief supporting Epic's Supreme Court appeal, but now there is an impressive group of companies, including two Big Techs, supporting Epic. Enough is enough. The industry has thrown down the gauntlet to Apple, rallying behind Epic. That is a HUGE step 🧵2/2
I've now quickly read the Meta-Microsoft-X-Match brief. It's a very good one, but one also must be realistic that the 2021 Epic v. Apple ruling says all sorts of things, some of which Apple now tries to capitalize on. So this will be a major enforcement fight. 🧵1/2
The single most important legal question is going to be whether Apple may charge anything when apps link to external purchasing options. If the courts (there will be an appeal) say no, Apple loses many billions. If they say yes, there's a need for a whole rate-setting trial.
The Meta-Microsoft-X-Match brief's first item (of various good ones) is “Apple Continues To Prohibit ‘Other Calls to Action’ Informing Consumers about, or Directing Consumers to, Lower-Cost Payment Options” That's something I instantly criticized on @games_fray back in January