Are these the same thing? Different framing, confusing details:

Apple wins partial reversal of sanctions in Epic Games antitrust lawsuit

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... (https://archive.ph/Cbi3f)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46237312

>Are these the same thing?

Both articles appear to point at the same 9th circuit appeals court ruling:

The Ars piece points at:

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/US-Co...

Which appears to be the same ruling as the Reuters piece links to:

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdqxweopo/...

As such, I believe that, yes, this is the same ruling reported by both Ars and Reuters.

The ruling says Apple can:

insist on Apple IAP links/buttons to be the same as buttons/links to external payments. But they can't ask for the outgoing links/buttons to be less prominent

charge for links/buttons to external payment, but not as they please. One interpretation is that it has to be based on real cost and can't in any way be tied to IAP costs.

can't use scare screens on external purchases

Well, yeah..

Devil's always in the details. But in this instance, any even partial win is still a win. Something is better than nothing.