News: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Appeals from Apple as well Epic in Antitrust Case -
The 16th of January, on the 16th of January, the U.S. Supreme Court denied requests to hear appeals from both Apple and Epic Games regarding the antitrust litigation Epic filed against Apple at the end of 2020. Reuters reported.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the majority of Epic's claims against Apple however, she ruled in Epic's favor regarding Apple's policies against developers sending users out of Apple's systems to purchase digital goods. Then in 2023, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 decision.
What is the way Apple is Responding
The Associated Press reported that this removes the hold of an order to give devs greater freedom to utilize other payment options. Apple has also submitted court documents on 16 January that outline its plans to comply with the order but still retain the majority of their costs.
AP continued that Apple's Tuesday court filing shows they intend to:
- Let developers use hyperlinks that point to other websites however, Apple is still charging 12% to 27% commission fees on payments made through links to websites that are external.
- Be sure to warn consumers with an "scare screen" in the event that they click an advertisement that takes the user to an alternative payment method, and inform them that Apple is not responsible for those purchases regarding privacy or security.
- Institute an application process for pre-approval that AP says is "potentially cumbersome" before allowing external-pointing hyperlinks or buttons to appear within iPhone or iPad apps. Apple's "effort to minimize fraudulent activities, frauds, and misinformation."
What Epic Games is Responding
AP said that the report outlining the above plans "provoked accusations that Apple has acted in bad faith and set the stage for more dispute over legal issues," apparently quoting Epic Games Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney's X (formerly known as Twitter) tweet that stated "Apple submitted a false 'compliance plans for the District Court's injunction."
Sweeney later outlined the list of "glaring issues we've discovered so far," concluding with " Epic will contest Apple's bad-faith compliance plan before District Court" and attaching an image of the aforementioned "scare display" Apple has included in the Developer Support update on the external purchase link.
The previous day, Sweeney had posted mixed views, stating that 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 exercising their court-established right to notify US customers about better rates on the internet."
Further Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
On the 17th of Jan, Reuters reported that Apple has also requested the judge on Tuesday to make Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal fees and additional costs. Reuters states that Apple's request was prompted by "a lower court's ruling that said Epic Games violated a developer agreement that it had signed in the year 2010," in which "Epic agreed to cover costs for legal and financial losses and other costs for any breach."