The News: U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeals from Apple as well Epic to Reject an Antitrust Case -
On Tuesday, January 16, the U.S. Supreme Court denied requests to hear appeals from both Apple as well as Epic Games regarding the antitrust lawsuit Epic filed against Apple for 2020. Reuters reported.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the bulk of Epic's allegations against Apple however she did rule against Epic's policy against developers sending customers outside Apple's system to make digital purchases. In 2023 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 decision.
How Apple Is Responding
According to the Associated Press reported that this lifts a hold on an order that gives devs greater freedom to utilize other payment options. Apple has also submitted court documents late on the 16th of January that outline its plans to comply with the order but still retain the majority of their fees.
AP reported that Apple's court filing shows they intend to:
- Developers are allowed to make use of hyperlinks to websites that link to external sites however, Apple is still charging 12% to 27% commission fees on payments via links to external websites.
- Warn consumers using a "scare screen" in the event that they click the link that directs the user to an alternative payment option, notifying them that Apple does not have any responsibility for the purchase in terms of security or privacy.
- Institute an approval process which AP says is "potentially difficult" prior to allowing externally-pointing links or buttons to appear within iPhone or iPad applications, citing Apple's "effort to limit the risk of fraud, scams and confusion."
How Epic Games Are Insisting
AP reported that the paper outlining the above plans "provoked assertions that Apple was acting in bad faith, and sets the scene for further legal sparring," apparently quoting Epic Games Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney's X (formerly called Twitter) tweet stating "Apple submitted a false 'compliance plans to obtain the District Court's order."
Sweeney later outlined the list of "glaring issues we've discovered to date," concluding with " Epic is going to challenge Apple's compliance scheme in bad faith in District Court" as well as uploading an image of the aforementioned "scare screen" Apple has included in the Developer Support update on external purchase links.
On Tuesday morning, Sweeney had posted mixed opinions, noting that there was a "shocking" decision by the Supreme Court choosing not to hear appeals in this case was "A tragic outcome for all developers" however, he also noted that " developers can begin taking advantage of their rights as judged by the court to tell US clients about cheaper rates on the internet."
Additional Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
On the 17th of Jan, Reuters reported that Apple had also asked the judge on Tuesday to make Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal fees and additional costs. Reuters reports that Apple's demand stems from "a lower court ruling that said Epic Games violated a developer agreement it signed in 2010," in which "Epic agreed to cover the costs of legal, losses, and other costs for any breach."