Latest News U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeals filed by Apple as well as Epic to settle Antitrust Case -
On the 16th of January, U.S. Supreme Court denied the arguments brought by Apple and Epic Games concerning the antitrust lawsuit Epic has filed against Apple to be heard in 2020. Reuters reported.
2021 was the last when U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected most of Epic's arguments against to Apple but did opt to back Epic's arguments against the practice that developers use of removing customers from Apple's network to purchase digital goods. In 2023, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 decision.
What Do you think Apple Think? Apple Reacts
The Associated Press reported that this removes the hold of the order, which allows developers to utilize a variety of payment options. Apple has also submitted documents to the court on 16 January, in which it proposes a way to comply with the orders and still retain the majority of the charges.
AP said that the court file of Apple provides evidence of Apple intends to:
- Developers are able to use hyperlinks for connect to other websites but Apple charges 12%-27 percentage commissions on transactions that are created with hyperlinks which are not part of.
- Informing consumers through a "scare screen" when they click the link, which redirects users to a new payment method, advising users that Apple does not have any obligation to these transactions with terms of privacy or security.
- Institute to approve a procedure that AP says is "potentially complex" prior to allowing hyperlinks that lead to external sites or buttons to be displayed in iPhone or iPad applications, citing Apple's "effort to prevent fraudulent actions or fraud as well as to avoid confusion."
What is it? Epic Games Are Insisting
AP stated that the news article detailing the plans "provoked allegations that Apple might be acting in a fraudulent manner and provided the basis for legal disputes," apparently quoting Epic Games Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney's X (formerly known as Twitter) blog entry where he stated that "Apple created a fraudulent compliance plan' in response to the order of the District Court."
Sweeney provided an extensive checklist of "glaring issues we've previously discovered," concluding with " Epic plans to challenge Apple's compliance programs for bad faith before District Court" as in addition to the attached an image of a "scare image" Apple has included in the Developer Support update the external purchase link.
The day before, Sweeney had posted mixed views, and voiced outrage over his disappointment with the Supreme Court choosing not to examine appeals in this situation as "A awful outcome for everyone developer" as well as stating at the possibility that " developers can begin using their rights in accordance with the guidelines set out by the court to warn US users of the lower price on the internet."
Further Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
The 17th of January, Reuters reported that Apple requested the judge on the Tuesday of January 17, to require Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal expenses as well as related costs. Reuters states that the request stems from "a earlier court decision that stated the fact that Epic Games violated an agreement with the developers who agreed to it in the year 2010" in which "Epic was required to pay for the legal costs, and the cost for any violation."
Similar findings on Epic and Apple. Apple and Epic against. Google:
about
The article originally appeared on on this website.
This article was originally posted here
Article was posted on here