Apple decision into a six-page overview covering all the main parts of the decision.
APPLE VS EPIC RULING TRIAL
A yearlong trial ensued, the result of which is a 185-page decision, which was handed down by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on September 10, 2021. Apple soon thereafter countersued for breach of contract. That same day, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store and Epic Games filed an antitrust suit in a federal district court in California. After Apple refused, Epic Games violated the App Store rules by enabling its own payment method in the Fortnite iOS app on August 13, 2020. Dissatisfied with these policies, Epic Games tried to use its flagship game Fortnite as leverage to convince Apple to open up its closed platform. Through this system, Apple automatically collects a 30% commission on all such transactions. Apple similarly requires developers to exclusively use its own in-app payment system for app purchases and in-app purchases for digital content. For instance, Apple prohibits the distribution of iOS apps outside of the App Store, which Apple fully controls. “Rehearing is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decision on these issues of exceptional importance”.By Natalia Moreno Belloso (European University Institute)Īt the heart of the legal battle between Epic Games and Apple is a set of restrictions Apple imposes on app developers. “The panel decision conflicts with circuit precedent on whether conduct determined to be reasonable under the laws may be enjoined as ‘unfair’ under California’s Unfair Competition Law”, Apple’s submission reckons. Reviewing April’s ruling in the Ninth Circuit, Epic states: “The conflict between the panel’s ruling and prior precedent involves important legal questions, the stakes here are uniquely high, and the outcome is plainly unsustainable. That could mean the same judges sitting down to do some reconsidering, or even better – both Epic and Apple reckon – it could be an en banc rehearing, which would involve more judges.
To that end both companies last week filed new legal papers with the Ninth Circuit requesting that the appeals court consider the case a second time. But Epic continues to argue that Apple is in breach of US competition law, while Apple continues to insist its anti-steering provisions do not violate Californian state law. The gaming firm said that that violated California’s unfair competition law and – on that point – the judge agreed.īoth sides in the dispute appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which then upheld most of the original judgement in April this year. However, when Epic sued Apple through the Californian courts arguing that the tech giant was in breach of US competition law by enforcing its App Store rules, the judge rejected those arguments.Īlthough, Epic had more success when it comes to the rule against sign-posting alternative payment options, what is often referred to as the anti-steering provision. This is the big bust up over Apple’s App Store rules, particularly the rules that force app-makers to take in-app payments on iOS devices via Apple’s own commission-charging transactions system, while also banning the signposting of alternative payment options online.įortnite maker Epic – like many other app-makers, especially Spotify – argues that these rules are anti-competitive. Neither side is happy with either the original ruling in that dispute, or the Ninth Circuit’s more recent decision to uphold most of the original judgement. Business News Digital Legal Epic and Apple both want the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its App Store judgement By Chris Cooke | Published on Monday 12 June 2023īoth Epic Games and Apple have asked the US Ninth Circuit appeals court to reconsider its ruling on the good old Epic Games v Apple legal battle.
0 kommentar(er)
