Latest News U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeals From Apple and Epic to Reject an Antitrust Case -
The 16th of January, on the 16th of January on the 16th of January, the U.S. Supreme Court denied requests to hear appeals from both Apple as well as Epic Games regarding the antitrust lawsuit Epic filed with Apple for 2020. Reuters reported.
In 2021 U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the majority of Epic's claims against Apple however she did rule in Epic's favor regarding Apple's guidelines against developers allowing users to go 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.
What Does Apple Think? Apple is Responding
It was reported that the Associated Press reported that this removes the hold of an order to give devs the ability to choose different payment methods. Apple has also submitted court documents late on January 16 which outline the company's plans to adhere to the ruling while still preserving most of their fees.
AP continued that Apple's Tuesday court filing indicates that they plan to:
- Let developers use hyperlinks that point to other websites However, Apple charges 12%-27 percentage commissions on transactions via links to external websites.
- Be sure to warn consumers with a "scare screen" in the event that they click a link pointing users to an alternative payment method, and inform them that Apple is not responsible to those transactions in regards to privacy or security.
- Institute a pre-approval process that AP calls "potentially difficult" before allowing external-pointing hyperlinks or buttons to show up in iPhone or iPad apps. Apple's "effort to minimize fraud, scams, and misinformation."
What Epic Games is Reacting
AP noted that the document outlining the above plans "provoked accusations that Apple was acting in bad faith and set the scene for further dispute over legal issues," apparently quoting Epic Games Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney's X (formerly called Twitter) tweet stating "Apple submitted a false 'compliance' plan to obtain the District Court's order."
Sweeney then threaded an extensive list of "glaring problems we've found in the past," concluding with " Epic will challenge Apple's bad-faith compliance plan at District Court" as well as the attachment of an image the "scare screen" Apple has included in the Developer Support Update regarding external purchase links.
On Tuesday morning, Sweeney had posted mixed opinions, noting that it was the Supreme Court choosing not to consider appeals in this instance was "A terrible outcome for everyone developers" but pointing out that " developers can begin using their right as a court judge to inform US customers about better prices when they shop online."
More Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
The 17th of January, on the 17th of January, Reuters reported that Apple had also asked the court on Tuesday to have Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal costs and other costs. Reuters says that Apple's request stems from "a lower court ruling that said Epic Games violated a developer agreement it signed in 2010," in which "Epic agreed to cover costs for legal and financial losses as well as other expenses for any breach."