![]() ![]() The Department of Justice antitrust division filed what’s known as an amicus brief – a statement from an uninvolved party which is intended to help the court reach the correct decision. ![]() The iPhone maker, in turn, is arguing that the court made a legal error when considering the anti-steering issue. Both Apple and Epic Games filed appeals on different aspects of the ruling.Įpic is appealing the ruling that the App Store is not a monopoly, arguing that there is no other way for developers to sell iPhone apps other than through Apple. The court ruled that Apple must allow developers to steer app users to external payment platforms, but concluded that the company did not meet the legal tests to be considered a monopoly – and thus did not have to permit competing app stores for iOS apps. The appeal hearing has now been scheduled for October 21, and it looks set to be an uphill battle for Apple.Īpple and Epic will each get only 20 minutes to make oral arguments, but we may also be hearing from the antitrust division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and potentially also an argument on behalf of 35 state attorneys general – each of which is effectively siding with Epic … BackgroundĮpic Games sued Apple for not allowing it to use its own payment platform instead of in-app purchases through the App Store, with Apple taking a 30% cut. While Epic is yet to comment, the company can also ask the Supreme Court to hear its appeal.Last year’s Epic Games versus Apple ruling left neither side happy, with both the developer and iPhone maker filing appeals against the judgement. Reuters notes that the 9th Circuit has rejected petitions from both Apple and Epic Games to revisit the judge’s decision. While Apple was forced to loosen some of the App Store rules, Judge Rogers also ruled that Apple wouldn’t be forced to allow Fortnite back into the App Store since Epic Games knew exactly what it was doing when it violated the guidelines. Epic then sued Apple, arguing that the company is a monopoly and has anti-competitive practices with the App Store guidelines.īut the case didn’t have a good outcome for either company. AppleĪpple banned Fortnite from the App Store in 2020 after Epic Games released an update that let players buy digital coins through an external method instead of using the App Store’s in-app purchases system. The petition says the company plans to raise “far-reaching and important” questions about the judges’ power. Such a ruling would significantly impact Apple’s profits, as the company currently charges a 30% commission on app sales and in-app purchases.Īpple lawyers claim that the 9th Circuit has gone too far in issuing a nationwide injunction against Apple. While it’s still unclear whether Apple will succeed, the company aims to reverse the decision that will force it to allow developers to sell in-app content using third-party platforms, even when those apps are distributed through the App Store. In the filing, Apple asks the Supreme Court to hear its arguments and reconsider Judge Rogers’ ruling. Apple turns to the Supreme Court to save the App Store business modelĪs reported by Reuters, Apple has filed a new appeal in the case against Epic Games, this time to the United States Supreme Court. Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. The company tried to appeal the ruling with the judge but was denied. ![]() After a prolonged court battle between Epic Games and Apple following Fortnite’s removal from the App Store, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple could no longer prohibit iOS developers from selling content in their apps using third-party payment platforms. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |