Latest News U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Appeals of Apple as well Epic In Antitrust Case -
On the 16th of January, U.S. Supreme Court denied the requests for hearing appeals made by Apple as well as Epic Games concerning the antitrust case Epic launched in 2020 vs. Apple for 2020. Reuters reported.
In 2021 U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the bulk of Epic's allegations against Apple but ruled in Epic's favor regarding Apple's policies against developers transferring customers outside of Apple's systems to purchase digital goods. 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
According to Associated Press reported that this is a release from an order which grants developers the option of choosing different payment methods. Apple also filed court documents on the 16th of January in which it outlines its plan to adhere to the orders and preserve the bulk of their costs.
AP reported the Apple court filing reveals that they plan to:
- Developers are allowed to make use of hyperlinks to other websites. However, Apple charges 12%-27 percentage commissions on transactions via links to external sites.
- Inform consumers via using the "scare screen" whenever they click the advertisement, which takes them to a different payment method, stating that Apple is not accountable for purchases in the sense of privacy or security.
- Institute to approve a procedure that AP says is "potentially difficult" before allowing external-pointing links or buttons to be displayed in iPhone or iPad applications, citing Apple's "effort to curb fraudulent activity or frauds as well as false information."
How Epic Games Are Responding
AP said that the report describing the plans "provoked claims that Apple is acting in bad trust and has set the scene for further legal questions," apparently quoting Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney's X (formerly known as Twitter) blog entry stating "Apple filed a bad-faith 'compliance' plan for the District Court's order."
Sweeney later outlined an extensive checklist of "glaring issues we've discovered so far," concluding with " Epic is going to contest Apple's compliance program for bad faith through District Court" as well as attaching an image of an "scare display" Apple has included in the Developer Support update regarding the external purchase link.
The previous day, Sweeney had posted mixed opinions, noting the fact that it is "unpleasant" the fact that the Supreme Court choosing not to take appeals on this matter was "A awful outcome for all developers" and stating " developers can begin making use of their rights as a court judge to provide US consumers about lower rates online."
More Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
The 17th of January, on the 17th of January, Reuters reported that Apple was also requesting the judge on Tuesday to require Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal costs and additional expenses. Reuters reports that Apple's demand was motivated by "a lower court's ruling that said Epic Games violated a developer agreement signed in 2010," according to which "Epic was ordered to compensate the costs of losses, legal fees along with any other fees arising from a breach."
Similar read on Epic Vs. Apple and Epic vs. Google:
about
Article was first seen on here