August 9, 2026
An Apple a day keeps trust away
Apple lied under oath to a federal court. The decision to lie came from Tim Cook
Apple’s court mess has commenters rolling their eyes and asking who actually pays
TLDR: A judge said Apple tried to sidestep a court order and that top leaders backed the move, creating a serious credibility problem. Commenters responded with heavy sarcasm about whether anyone powerful will face consequences, plus a weirdly passionate side fight over the article’s date.
Apple is in full courtroom chaos mode, and the community is treating it like the latest episode of a prestige scandal series. The big bombshell: a federal judge said Apple tried to dodge a court order over App Store payments, backed up its move with what she called a sham report, hid documents, and heard testimony that included a lie under oath. Even worse for Apple’s image, the article says the call to push ahead came from Tim Cook himself after an internal split, with one side warning the plan might break the judge’s rules and the other side fighting to protect the money.
But in the comments, the loudest reaction wasn’t shock — it was cynicism. One of the sharpest lines came from a user dripping with sarcasm: of course the people responsible will go to jail for perjury, because in America the law applies to everyone equally. That was the mood in a nutshell: readers weren’t exactly betting on dramatic handcuffs. Instead, they were side-eyeing the whole system and basically saying, “We’ve seen this movie before.”
Then the thread took a very internet turn. A few commenters started arguing not about Apple, but about the date on the article, grumbling that it looked old and needed a clearer 2025 label. Another dropped an archive link, the classic comment-section move that says, “Fine, I’ll bring receipts myself.” So yes, Apple’s legal trouble is huge — but the comments turned it into a mix of rage, sarcasm, and hall-monitor energy.
Key Points
- •The article says Apple executives debated how to comply with a court order requiring more freedom for app developers to direct users to outside payment options.
- •According to the article, Tim Cook chose Luca Maestri’s proposal to charge a 27 percent commission on online sales rather than Phil Schiller’s recommendation to charge no commission.
- •Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said Apple "manufactured" an independent economic study, improperly withheld thousands of documents under attorney-client privilege claims, and had at least one executive lie on the stand.
- •The ruling and related testimony and documents, according to the article, show Apple took extensive steps to preserve App Store revenue.
- •The article says the ruling may undermine Apple’s credibility as it faces antitrust and competition cases in the United States, European Union, Britain, Spain, and potentially China.