Will the Apple Ruling Make Apps Cheaper or Give Users Refunds?

More competition may change commercial options without producing the same financial result for every customer.

The Apple orders should not be advertised as a guaranteed discount or universal compensation scheme.¹

Prices remain commercial decisions

The orders restrict specified barriers to developers offering lower prices through alternative distribution or payment arrangements.

Whether a developer does so depends on its commercial choices, payment costs and service model.

A developer may also incur additional expenses for distribution, security, support and compliance.

Refunds are a separate question

The judgment does not direct automatic refunds to every person who bought an app or digital content.

The Court identified separate class-action proceedings. Their progress and any compensation outcome must be checked separately.

The order requiring Apple to pay 85% of Epic’s liability-trial costs is a legal-costs order, not a consumer refund fund.¹

Check the seller and support

When paying through an alternative channel, identify the merchant, subscription terms and cancellation process.

Do not assume that Apple will handle every third-party billing problem.

Equally, do not assume that using an alternative channel removes ordinary legal protections. Their application requires assessment of the supplier, transaction and relevant law.

See also

• Epic v Apple explained
• What the Apple orders require
• Overseas reach of the ruling

This page provides general legal information only. It does not constitute legal advice, and specific advice should be obtained about any particular transaction, subscription or developer arrangement.