Connect with us

Business

Apple Can No Longer Force Commission Fees on Developers, Judge Rules

Published

on

While the ruling marks a major win for app developers, Epic Games — which brought the lawsuit that sparked the ruling — was ordered to pay $3.5 million for violating its contract with Apple after initially bucking against the commission fee.


Apple Must Allow Multiple Payment Systems

A federal judge ruled Friday that Apple can no longer limit developers it hosts in its App Store to a single, commission-based option.

The decision, handed down by District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, comes after Fortnitedeveloper Epic Games filed separate lawsuits against Apple and Google last year for unfair app store practices. In each lawsuit, Epic alleged Apple and Google were engaging in antitrust activities by forcing developers to pay a 30% commission fee on all in-app purchases.

Leading up to the lawsuit, Epic initially implemented a secondary payment method that bypassed the mandatory fee system. Following that, both Apple and Google removed “Fortnite” from their app stores, alleging a breach of contract.

In her Friday ruling, Judge Gonzalez-Rogers provided one win for Epic, issuing Apple an injunction that “permanently restrain[s] and enjoin[s]” it from prohibiting developers to provide access to additional forms of payment in their apps. 

In other words, Apple can continue to implement its commission-based system, but developers don’t have to adhere to it and will be able to introduce new payment systems that allow them to keep a bigger portion of their sales. That will primarily come in the form of links that redirect users from their apps.

Last week, Apple announced that in early 2022, it will begin allowing “reader” apps, or apps with subscription-based models such as Netflix and Spotify, to redirect users to outside methods of payments. The move, a modest concession spurred from an investigation by Japan’s Fair Trade Commission, had no way of hurting Apple’s App Store revenue, unlike Friday’s ruling. That’s because “reader” apps do not currently offer any in-app purchases.

Like Apple’s agreement with Japan, Friday’s injunction is not immediate. Instead, it will take effect in 90 days (Dec. 9) provided a high court doesn’t reverse the decision.

Not a Complete Win for Epic

Epic didn’t walk away from its court battle with Apple completely unscathed. That’s because Judge Gonzalez-Rogers also ruled that Epic was in breach of its contract with Apple when it bucked against the company’s single-payment system.

As a result, she has ordered Epic to pay Apple 30% of all the revenue it has collected since it adopted its secondary payment method. In total, that’s a sum of more than $3.5 million.

Judge Gonzalez-Rogers likewise rejected Epic’s claim that Apple had formed a monopoly, saying, “the court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws.”

“Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws,” she added.

Unsurprisingly, Apple has largely focused on the judge’s rulings against Epic rather than its significant loss related to commission fees. 

“Today the Court has affirmed what we’ve known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law,” a representative told The Verge. “Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world. We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace.”

What’s Next?

Apple will almost certainly appeal its loss, but if the decision is upheld, that could mean a significant setback for the company, which has long argued that its commission fees act as a way to vet developers and ensure a safe experience for users. The App Store alone reportedly brought in $64 billion for the company in 2020.

The trial for Epic Games v. Google has not yet started, though Judge Gonzalez-Rogers’ ruling could indicate how another judge might rule on the issue. If Friday’s decision is upheld, it’s almost certain that Google’s Play Store would be held to the same standards as Apple’s App Store. Additionally, another lawsuit by 36 state attorneys general has been filed against Google’s app store practices. 

Internationally, South Korea late last month became the first country to pass a bill that bars major app stores from forcing developers to pay commission fees for users’ in-app purchases. Just before Judge Gonzalez-Rogers’ ruling Friday, Epic asked Apple to restore Fortnite to the App Store in South Korea; however, Apple has refused to do so until Epic agrees to “play by the same rules as everyone else.”

According to Axios, Apple will likely only concede to bring “Fortnite” back if ordered to do so by a court. 

See what others are saying: (The Verge) (CNBC) (Axios)

Business

Adidas Financial Woes Continue, Company on Track for First Annual Loss in Decades

Published

on

Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company. 


Yeezy Surplus 

Adidas’ split with musician Kanye West has left the company with financial problems due to surplus Yeezy products, putting the sportswear giant in the position to potentially suffer its first annual loss in over 30 years. 

Adidas dropped West last year after he made a series of antisemitic remarks on social media and other broadcasts. His Yeezy line was a staple for Adidas, and the surplus product is due, in part, to the brand’s own decision to continue production during the split.

According to CEO Bjorn Gulden, Adidas continued production of only the items already in the pipeline to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs. However, that has led to the unfortunate overabundance of Yeezy sneakers and clothes. 

On Wednesday, Gulden said that selling the shoes and donating the proceeds makes more sense than giving them away due to the Yeezy resale market — which has reportedly shot up 30% since October.

“If we sell it, I promise that the people who have been hurt by this will also get something good out of this,” Gulden said in a statement to the press. 

However, Gulden also said that West is entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the sale of Yeezys per his royalty agreement.

The Numbers 

Adidas announced in February that, following its divergence from West, it is facing potential sales losses totaling around $1.2 billion and profit losses of around $500 million. 

If it decides to not sell any more Yeezy products, Adidas is facing a projected annual loss of over $700 million.

Outside of West, Adidas has taken several heavy profit blows recently. Its operating profit reportedly fell by 66% last year, a total of more than $700 million. It also pulled out of Russia after the country’s invasion of Ukraine last year, which cost Adidas nearly $60 million dollars. Additionally, China’s “Zero Covid” lockdowns last year caused in part a 36% drop in revenue for Adidas compared to years prior.

As a step towards a solution, Gulden announced that the company is slashing its dividends from 3.30 euros to 0.70 euro cents per share pending shareholder approval. 

Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company. 

“Adidas has all the ingredients to be successful. But we need to put our focus back on our core: product, consumers, retail partners, and athletes,” Gulden said. “I am convinced that over time we will make Adidas shine again. But we need some time.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk Bashes Disabled Ex-Twitter Employee, Gets Blowback

Published

on

After Musk claimed the former employee “did no actual work,” the staffer calmly directed passive-aggressive insults right back at the billionaire.


Excuse Me, Do I Still Work Here?

Elon Musk brawled online with a former Twitter employee who didn’t know whether he was fired Tuesday, accusing the staffer of exploiting his disability.

Haraldur “Halli” Thorleifsson, who has muscular dystrophy, joined Twitter in 2021 after it acquired the creative agency he founded: Ueno.

He said on Twitter that he was unable to confirm whether he was still a Twitter employee nine days after being locked out of his work computer, despite reaching out to the head of HR and Musk himself through email.

At the time, Twitter had laid off at least 200 workers, or some 10% of its remaining workforce.

In search of an answer, Thorleifsson tweeted at Musk, who responded with the question: “What work have you been doing?”

After being given permission by Musk to break confidentiality, Thorleifsson listed several of his accomplishments, including leading “design crits to help level up design across the company.”

“Level up from what design to what? Pics or it didn’t happen,” Musk replied.

We haven’t hired design roles in 4 months. What changes did you make to help with the youths?”

Thorleifsson reminded Musk that he couldn’t access any pictures because he was locked out of his work computer.

Musk stopped replying to the tweets, but hours later he returned to the platform to lob invective at his former employee.

Musk Vs. Halli

“The reality is that this guy (who is independently wealthy) did no actual work, claimed as his excuse that he had a disability that prevented him from typing, yet was simultaneously tweeting up a storm,” Musk tweeted, apparently referring to Thorleifsson. “Can’t say I have a lot of respect for that.”

“But was he fired? No, you can’t be fired if you weren’t working in the first place,” he added.

In a later Twitter thread, Thorleifsson said he could type for one or two hours at a time before his hands cramped, but that in pre-Musk Twitter, that wasn’t a problem because he was a senior director.

He added that despite his crippling disability, he worked hard for years to build Ueno.

“We grew fast and made money,” he said. “I think that’s what you are referring to when you say independently wealthy? That I independently made my money, as opposed to say, inherited an emerald mine.”

Thorleifsson made several more passive-aggressive jabs at Musk.

“I joined at a time when the company was growing fast,” he wrote. “You kind of did the opposite. The company had a fair amount of issues, but then again, most bigger companies do. Or even small companies, like Twitter today.”

Thorleifsson said that immediately following his back-and-forth with Musk, Twitter’s head of HR confirmed that he had indeed been fired from the company.

See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (CNN) (Yahoo)

Continue Reading

Business

Twitter Becomes First Major Social Media Platform to Allow Cannabis Ads in U.S.

Published

on

Industry leaders hope the move will encourage other platforms to change their policies on cannabis advertising.


Twitter Updates Ad Rules

Twitter announced Wednesday that the company is changing its policies to allow cannabis companies to run ads on the platform.

The decision makes Twitter the first social media platform to allow cannabis ads in the U.S., where it is legal in nearly half of all states but not at the federal level. The company, however, did include a number of restrictions under the new policy.

Most significantly, companies are prohibited from running ads that promote the sale of cannabis, with the exception of “ads for topical (non-ingestible) hemp-derived CBD topical products containing equal to or less than the 0.3% THC government-set threshold.” 

As far as what advertisers can show, Twitter did not explicitly say, but it has been reported that they will be allowed to promote their brands and provide informational content.   

Beyond that, all advertisers “must be licensed by the appropriate authorities,” authorized by Twitter, and they can only advertise in locations where they are licensed.

There are also rules about what these companies can show. For example, they cannot target ads for people under 21 — nor can they show people using cannabis or under the influence. Additionally, there are bans on making claims “of efficacy or health benefits” as well as false or misleading claims.

Twitter made it clear that advertisers are liable for ensuring that they are in compliance “with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and advertising guidelines.” 

A Possible Growing Trend

Twitter’s new move policy has been widely cheered by the industry, and already, companies have begun to take advantage of this new update.

According to Reuters, the medical and recreational cannabis provider Trulieve Cannabis Corp has launched a multistate ad campaign on Twitter. Other companies that make cannabis accessories like PAX — which is an industry leader best known for its vaporizers — have also started advertising their devices, per Marijuana Moment.

“We’re excited to be among the first of Twitter’s cannabis advertising partners and be able to engage customers more directly,” PAX Vice President of Marketing Luke Droulez said in a press release. “After decades of prohibitionist propaganda, there is an opportunity to destigmatize and normalize the plant and its use.”

Twitter’s decision raises questions about whether other social media companies will follow suit. There has been some movement in the space: just last month, Google updated its policies to allow ads for FDA-approved pharmaceuticals containing CBD and “topical, hemp-derived CBD products with THC content of 0.3% or less.” 

Those ads, however, are limited to California, Colorado, and Puerto Rico, and some formats are banned, like YouTube Masthead ads.

Some in the industry have speculated that this change is not representative of broader trends, and instead just a decision Twitter made because it is struggling to keep advertisers under Elon Musk’s leadership.

The company has reportedly lost more than half of its top advertisers, and major firms have actively told clients not to buy ads since his takeover. To that point, Twitter is trying exceptionally hard to get cannabis advertisers.

Amy Deneson, the co-founder of the Cannabis Media Council, a trade association focused on cannabis education, told Politico that the platform is not setting any minimum ad buys for cannabis companies, a significant departure from the $5,000 to $10,000 many advertising platforms require.

Beyond that, the company is also offering a one-to-one match for every dollar cannabis advertisers spend on ads until the end of March — so a $50 campaign would actually be a $100 one.

Even if the move is just a bid to attract new advertisers at a time when the company is dealing with financial troubles, if it proves to be successful, it is hard to imagine other platforms would not follow in Twitter’s footsteps.

See what others are saying: (Axios) (Politico) (Reuters)

Continue Reading