Information: U.S. Supreme Court denies appeals from Apple as well Epic as part of an Antitrust Case -

On January 16, on the 16th of January on the 16th of January, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the appeals of both Apple and Epic Games concerning the antitrust case Epic has filed against Apple in the year 2020. Reuters reported.

Then in 2021 U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the majority of Epic's complaints against Apple but, she decided in Epic's favor regarding Apple's policy against developers transferring users away from Apple's systems to purchase digital goods. And in 2023, a judge from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 ruling.

What is the way Apple is responding

According to the Associated Press reported that this removes the hold of an order, allowing developers greater freedom to utilize alternative payment methods. Apple has also submitted documents to the court on the 16th of January in which it outlines its plan to follow the orders but still retain the majority of their costs.

AP continued that Apple's Tuesday court filing shows they intend to:

• Allow developers to use hyperlinks that point to other websites however, Apple is still charging 12% to 27% commission fees for payments made through links to external websites.
• It is important to alert consumers via a "scare screen" should they click on a banner that redirects them to a payment alternative as well as remind them that Apple does not have any responsibility to those transactions in regards to privacy or security.
• Institute the application procedure to get pre-approval, which the AP says is "potentially cumbersome" before allowing external-pointing hyperlinks or buttons to appear within iPhone or iPad applications. Apple's "effort to limit fraudulent actions as well as misinformation, frauds and other fraudulent activities."

What Epic Games is responding

AP said that the report outlining the above plans "provoked accusations that Apple is acting in bad in good faith, and created the conditions for more dispute over legal issues," apparently quoting Epic Games Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney's X (formerly known as Twitter) Twitter post which stated "Apple has submitted false compliance plan' for the injunction of the District Court."

Sweeney further provided a list of "glaring problems we've found so this time," concluding with " Epic will contest Apple's poor-faith compliance strategy in District Court" and attaching an image of the aforementioned "scare image" Apple has included in the Developer Support Update on the link to purchase externally.

On the previous day, Sweeney had posted mixed views, stating his opinion that Supreme Court choosing not to take appeals into this case was "A awful outcome for all developers" while stating the fact that " developers can begin using their right as a court judge to notify US clients about lower prices on the web."

Additional Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments

The 17th of January, Reuters reported that Apple is also asking the judge on Tuesday to require Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal fees and other expenses. Reuters says that Apple's request was spurred due to "a lower court's ruling that said Epic Games violated a developer agreement signed in 2010," in which "Epic agreed to cover costs to cover financial and legal damages and additional costs resulting from any violation."

Similar read on Epic and Google. Apple and Epic vs. Google:

about

Article was first seen on here