The court orders Apple to revise Apple's App Store guidelines to allow for more competition.

Opening Up of NFC and Other Hardware Features - Apple is required to provide third-party developers access to hardware features currently restricted, such as the NFC chip used for tap-to-pay transactions.

IApple gets mandated to implement interoperability measures for messaging and smartwatch functionalities

Apple gets subjected to financial penalties

Establishment of a mechanism for ongoing oversight of Apple's compliance with the lawsuit's rulings.

The ruling forces Apple to allow developers to use their payment systems within their apps, bypassing Apple's in-app purchase system and the associated fees.

The court requires Apple to permit cloud gaming services on its devices

The court orders Apple to apply its rules and guidelines fairly across all apps and not enforce them selectively to benefit its services or harm competitors.

Apple is compelled to allow developers more freedom in presentation and monetization of apps, including enabling different app discovery methods (ex : use of icons or tiles for mini programs, categorizing them, or using virtual currencies).

The lawsuit leads to a decision that deems Apple's 30% commission rate as excessive.

Apple gets ordered to give restitution to developers or consumers who have been adversely affected by its policies.

The court finds Apple guilty of monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the performance smartphone market and/or the broader smartphone market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The court may issue injunctions to prohibit Apple from continuing the specific practices that are identified as anticompetitive, such as using control over app distribution and private APIs to undermine competition.

The court mandates a specific maximum percentage for App Store commissions, such as reducing the current 30% fee to a lower figure, like 15% or 10%.

Compulsory API Access: Apple gets ordered to provide third-party developers with access to the same APIs and functionalities that its own apps use, which could be tracked by a compliance monitor appointed by the court.

Mandatory Allowance of Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading

The court defines specific permissible actions for super apps and cloud gaming services on iOS, like not requiring each game or service within a super app to be submitted to the App Store individually.

The court sets clear deadlines for when Apple must implement these changes, such as within 90 days of the ruling, providing a clear timeline for verification.

If state antitrust laws are violated, Apple could be fined a specific dollar amount per incident of anticompetitive conduct, as defined by state statutes. (Conditional market)

The court could require a measurable increase in the number of apps or services in previously restricted categories, such as digital wallets or cloud gaming, available on iOS within a certain period post-ruling.

Which of the above predictions will come true?

In case of ambiguitiy, it will be resolved with a lower bar and in the spirit of the option and not hold the option to its exact wording. 

Some of the options appear to be somewhat overlapping, which is fine for this market. 

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24107659/apple-doj-lawsuit-antitrust-documents-suing