News: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Appeals from Apple and Epic in 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 case Epic brought with Apple in 2020, Reuters reported.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected most of Epic's arguments against Apple but ruled in favor of Epic's policy against developers sending customers outside Apple's system to purchase digital goods. In 2023 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 ruling.
What Does Apple Think? Apple Is Responding
It was reported that the Associated Press reported that this removes the hold of the order, which gives developers greater freedom to utilize other payment options. Apple also filed court papers on the 16th of January which outline the company's plans to adhere to the ruling while still preserving most of their costs.
AP continued that Apple's Tuesday court filing shows they intend to:
- Allow developers to use hyperlinks to websites that link to external sites, but Apple charges 12%-27% commission fees on payments through links to other websites.
- Inform consumers via a "scare screen" if they click the link that directs them to an alternate payment option, notifying them that Apple is not liable to those transactions in regards to privacy or security.
- Institute an approval process which AP says is "potentially cumbersome" before allowing external-pointing links or buttons to show up within iPhone or iPad apps, citing Apple's "effort to minimize the risk of fraud, scams and misinformation."
How Epic Games is Insisting
AP reported that the paper outlining the above plans "provoked claims that Apple was acting in bad faith and set the stage for more dispute over legal issues," apparently quoting Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney's X (formerly known as Twitter) blog post that stated "Apple filed a bad-faith 'compliance plans for the District Court's injunction."
Sweeney later outlined a list of "glaring difficulties we've identified in the past," concluding with " Epic will contest Apple's bad-faith compliance program at District Court" as well as attaching an image of the "scare screens" Apple has included in the Developer Support update on the external purchase link.
The previous day, Sweeney had posted mixed opinions, noting it was "unpleasant" that it was the Supreme Court choosing not to consider appeals in this instance was "A tragic outcome for all developers" while pointing out " developers can begin taking advantage of their rights as judged by the court to inform US clients about cheaper prices when they shop online."
More 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 costs and additional costs. Reuters states that Apple's request is based on "a lower court's ruling that said Epic Games violated a developer agreement that it had signed in the year 2010," in which "Epic was required to pay for costs for legal and financial losses as well as other expenses for any violation."