Although the district court erred in holding that a contract of adhesion couldn’t violate Sherman Act section 1 (which by its terms applies to every contract in restraint of trade), it properly applied the rule of reason test in holding that Apple’s restrictions on app developers’ sales (requiring sale through the Apple Store, payment of 30% of gross revenues to Apple and not advertising alternative means of payment).  The district court properly found that Apple wielded market power in requiring app developers to sell through the Apple App Store and charging them a 30% of revenue fee for App Store sales.  The mere fact that there had been no reduction in output did not show Apple’s policies didn’t harm competition.  Nor could Apple overcome the district court’s finding that the 30% charge was supra competitive by showing that the price had never been increased.  Also, the comparison of Apple’s fees with competitors had to take into account not just the quoted fee but competitors’ willingness to negotiate a lower fee.  However, the district court found that Apple’s procompetitive rationales for its practices–App Store exclusivity improved device security and user privacy and the fee was justified as pay back for Apple’s costs in developing the operating system (though not to the tune of 30%).  Epic failed to show that there were substantially less restrictive means by which Apple could achieve its procompetitive goals.  Even when a plaintiff, like Epic, fails to show substantially less restrictive means would achieve the defendant’s procompetitive goals, the court must weigh the practices benefits and harms to see whether the practice is illegal.