Epic v. Apple: a judge says Phil Schiller wanted Apple to comply with the court order, but Tim Cook ignored him, and its finance VP “outright lied under oath”
Tim Cook ‘Chose Poorly’ Bluesky: Emil Protalinski / @emilprotalinski : A company executive lied under oath? And the US will do nothing? Say it ain't so! [embedded post] Erin Casali / @folletto : While I thought Tim Sweeney take was a bit excessive at the time, I can't avoid thinking how stupid it's been of them to not listen to Phil Schiller. — This was a bad decision. While it's obvious they will appeal (that's just “playing the game") I also hope they internally see reason. [embedded post] Ashley M. Gjøvik / @ashleygjovik : A helpful development as I'm drafting my 9th Circuit appellate brief arguing why I should be able to pursue the RICO claim against Apple for, among other racketeering, their incessant obstruction of justice. ("Court finds Apple exec lied under oath in Epic Games trial") — www.cnbc.com/2025/04/30/c... … Steve Kovach / @stevekovach : Judge: “This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order” — www.cnbc.com/2025/04/30/c... Mastodon: Steve Streza / @stevestreza@indieweb.social : Phil Schiller seems to be the only one consistently absolved by the judge on Apple's executive team. He advocated for no commissions and apparently raised several objections to the plan, but was overruled. So when I say the old soul of Apple is dead by new money greed, the judge seems to agree. … Threads: John Gruber / @gruber : Not what you want to hear from a judge: “Philip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly.” https://daringfireball.net/... X: Jason Kint / @jason_kint : Alex Roman had a super bad day. If anyone directed him on this testimony cited by the Court, heads will roll. either way, Apple Inc also has big problems. /2 [image] @dhh : Judge is also referring Apple and Finance VP Alex Roman to the US Attorney for potential criminal prosecution due to their contempt of court!! Incredible fumble by Apple. So hellbent on screwing over devs that they were willing to risk a criminal case rather than budge an inch. [image] @balancecrafting : The end of the decision frames the scope of the criminal referral as “against Apple and Alex Roman, Apple's Vice President of Finance specifically.” Although only Roman named, the next proceedings can- and should- explore criminal contempt against Tim Cook + other execs Mark Gurman / @markgurman : Judge tells Apple to stop charging commissions on purchases made outside of the App Store (currently 27% cut) and says the company's VP of Finance Alex Roman lied under oath. She says Phil Schiller didn't want to take a % on out-of-store purchases but was overruled by CEO & CFO. Lee Hepner / @leehepner : Damn, I don't think I've ever seen a federal judge spit so much fire as in the first two pages of this Apple smackdown. “Cook chose poorly.” 💀 [image] Forums: r/technology : Court finds Apple, executive lied under oath in Epic Games trial
Context & Ripple Effects
The dispute has moved from the legality of Apple’s App Store model to the practical meaning of the court’s remedy. Apple previously reported limited uptake of its outside-payments option—just 38 applications among developers offering in-app payments—while the earlier appellate ruling largely left the underlying App Store framework intact.
The new findings also put internal decision-making at the center of the case: Schiller’s reported position against an outside-purchase commission echoes his earlier willingness to consider a lower App Store fee if Apple’s profit target could be maintained.
First-order effects
- Apple is ordered to stop charging commissions on purchases made outside the App Store, removing the reported roughly 27% charge that had accompanied its external-payments path.
- The judge’s findings that Cook overrode Schiller and that finance VP Alex Roman lied under oath raise immediate legal and governance pressure for Apple, including a referral to the U.S. Attorney over potential contempt-related conduct.
Second-order effects
- Developers that avoided Apple’s outside-payments option because its economics remained close to in-app billing gain a clearer route to direct payment relationships; Apple must revise the associated rules and disclosures.
- The ruling gives Epic a stronger enforcement position after the earlier appeal largely preserved Apple’s platform model, and makes compliance design—not merely the availability of an external link—the central competitive issue.
Third-order effects
- If sustained through appeal, the case could establish that platform injunctions require commercially meaningful alternatives, limiting the ability to preserve a disputed fee through substitute charges or restrictive implementation.
- The referral and judicial criticism could make senior-executive oversight and evidentiary records a larger risk area when dominant platforms implement court-ordered changes.
The trend: Platform regulation is shifting from challenging app-store rules in principle to testing whether remedies genuinely open payment and customer-choice pathways in practice.