News: U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeals from Apple as well Epic in Antitrust Case -
On January 16, the U.S. Supreme Court denied requests to listen to appeals filed by Apple and Epic Games regarding the antitrust case Epic brought with Apple at the end of 2020. Reuters reported.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected most of Epic's arguments against Apple however she did rule in favor of Epic'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.
What Does Apple Think? Apple Responds
The Associated Press reported that this lifts a hold on an order that gives devs greater freedom to utilize different payment methods. Apple also filed court documents on the 16th of January that outline its plans to comply with the order and still preserve the bulk of their fees.
AP added that Apple's 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 made through links to websites that are external.
- Inform consumers via a "scare screen" when they click on a link pointing them to an alternate payment system, stating that Apple is not liable for those purchases regarding security or privacy.
- Institute an approval process which AP says is "potentially complicated" prior to allowing externally-pointing links or buttons to be displayed within iPhone or iPad apps, citing Apple's "effort to limit fraudulent activities, frauds, and confusion."
How Epic Games Is Responding
AP noted that the document that outlines the plans "provoked claims that Apple is acting in a fraudulent manner and has set the scene for further legal sparring," apparently quoting Epic Games' CEO Tim Sweeney's X (formerly called Twitter) blog post in which he said "Apple submitted a false 'compliance plans for the District Court's injunction."
Sweeney then threaded a list of "glaring problems we've found in the past," concluding with " Epic is going to challenge Apple's compliance scheme in bad faith at District Court" as well as the attachment of an image a "scare display" Apple has included in its Developer Support update on external purchase links.
Earlier on Tuesday, Sweeney had posted mixed sentiments, noting his displeasure with it was the Supreme Court choosing not to consider appeals in this instance was "A terrible outcome for everyone developers" while pointing out " developers can begin taking advantage of their rights as judged by the court to notify US customers about better prices on the web."
Further Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
On Wednesday, January 17, Reuters reported that Apple also asked the judge on Tuesday to make Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal costs and other expenses. Reuters reports that Apple's demand is based on "a earlier court decision which said Epic Games violated a developer agreement they signed in 2010," in which "Epic agreed to cover the costs of legal, losses, as well as other expenses for any breach."