Latest News U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeals From Apple as well Epic in Antitrust Case -
The 16th of January, on the 16th of January The U.S. Supreme Court denied requests to listen to appeals filed by Apple as well as Epic Games regarding the antitrust litigation Epic brought in 2020 against Apple at the end of 2020. Reuters reported.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the bulk of Epic's arguments against Apple however, she ruled in Epic's favor regarding Apple's policy against developers sending customers away from Apple's network to buy digital products. And in 2023 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers' 2021 decision.
How Apple Responds
According to the Associated Press reported that this lifts a hold on an order that gives devs the ability to choose different payment methods. Apple was also able to file court documents late on the 16th of January in which it outlines its plan to comply with the court order and still preserve the bulk of the fees.
AP added that Apple's court filing indicates that they plan to:
- Developers are allowed to make use of links pointing to external websites However, Apple will still charge 12%-27 percentage commissions on transactions made through links to websites that are external.
- Warn consumers using the "scare screen" in the event that they click the link that directs the user to an alternative payment option, notifying them that Apple is not liable to those transactions in regards to security or privacy.
- Institute an approval process which AP says is "potentially complicated" before allowing external-pointing links or buttons to appear within iPhone or iPad applications, citing Apple's "effort to limit fraud, scams, and confusion."
How Epic Games Is Responding
AP said that the report detailing the above-mentioned plans "provoked assertions that Apple is acting in a fraudulent manner and has set the stage for future legal sparring," apparently quoting Epic Games' CEO Tim Sweeney's X (formerly called Twitter) tweet that stated "Apple submitted a false 'compliance plans to obtain the District Court's order."
Sweeney later outlined the list of "glaring problems we've found so far," concluding with " Epic will challenge Apple's compliance scheme in bad faith at District Court" and the attachment of an image a "scare screen" Apple has included in its Developer Support Update regarding external purchase links.
On Tuesday morning, Sweeney had posted mixed views, stating it was "unpleasant" that the Supreme Court choosing not to hear appeals in this case was "A terrible outcome for everyone developers" but pointing out that " developers can begin taking advantage of their rights as judged by the court to inform US customers about better prices when they shop online."
Further Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
The 17th of January, on the 17th of January, Reuters reported that Apple also asked the court on Tuesday for Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal costs and other costs. Reuters reports that Apple's demand stems from "a lower court's ruling that said Epic Games violated a developer agreement they signed in 2010," in which "Epic was required to pay for costs for legal and financial losses and any other charges arising from a violation."