Price gauging has a very particular meaning; it isn't simply a subjective "you're charging too much".
It is the practice of significantly increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities during a time of crisis or high demand. This can happen when there is a sudden shortage of a product, like during a natural disaster, or when there is a surge in demand, like for popular concert tickets.
Characteristics of price gauging include:
- unconscionable prices
- taking advantage of a crisis
- limited supply or high demand
In the United States price gouging is illegal after a state of emergency has been declared.
Your tone is unexpectedly adversarial, and yet you're not disagreeing. I was simply answering gp's question about legal foundation of whether one can be considered to be "charging too much" under the law.
But overpriced goods and services are fairly common and accepted in the marketplace. Gucci handbags, houses, TurboTax, any product or service at a car dealership…
The 30% App Store tax does suck but I’ve never understood why it’s singled out. My best guess is that people hate platforms because it’s a 3-way transaction, which makes everything harder, including price negotiation. And also the service isn’t particularly unique, unlike the house, or a status symbol, unlike the Gucci handbag.
Ironically, if Apple made App Store publication more expensive but invite-only, like a high end Bugatti sports car, I don’t think it would’ve ended up in court.
30% is a lot, but it's particularly egregious when your one and only option is to pay 30% to Apple, who is doing everything in their power to make sure it remains your only option. Apple is a monopoly in this specific scenario, and setting the fee so high comes off as a "fuck you, try and stop me" kind of move.
"Google's lawyer highlighted Epic's willingness to pay the same 30% commissions to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo for transactions on gaming consoles previously in the trial."
They're kind of in a weird position because each of those companies are sticking them up, but because mobile isn't the bulk of their revenue, they can afford the legal costs of proceeding against Apple even if Apple retaliates against them in the meantime. Whereas if they got kicked off all the consoles they'd be out of business before the court case is over.
The argument that the consoles are subsidizing the hardware is just an excuse which has the causation reversed. They're not charging 30% because they have to subsidize the hardware, they're subsidizing the hardware in furtherance of their scheme to charge 30%. Without it they would stop subsidizing the hardware, but so what? People would pay less for games and more for hardware.
You might even pay less for hardware, because there would be no more reason to restrict games to a particular console and then you would only need one to play all the games, and Sony/Nintendo/MS would compete like (or be replaced by) Dell/HP/Lenovo.
Anti-price-gauging laws have already been ruled as constitutional, so there is case law for "You're charging too much"