The gaming firm said that that violated California’s unfair competition law and – on that point – the judge agreed.īoth sides in the dispute appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which then upheld most of the original judgement in April this year. However, when Epic sued Apple through the Californian courts arguing that the tech giant was in breach of US competition law by enforcing its App Store rules, the judge rejected those arguments.Īlthough, Epic had more success when it comes to the rule against sign-posting alternative payment options, what is often referred to as the anti-steering provision. This is the big bust up over Apple’s App Store rules, particularly the rules that force app-makers to take in-app payments on iOS devices via Apple’s own commission-charging transactions system, while also banning the signposting of alternative payment options online.įortnite maker Epic – like many other app-makers, especially Spotify – argues that these rules are anti-competitive. Neither side is happy with either the original ruling in that dispute, or the Ninth Circuit’s more recent decision to uphold most of the original judgement. However, Rogers did not provide an actual expectation on when a decision will be made.Business News Digital Legal Epic and Apple both want the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its App Store judgement By Chris Cooke | Published on Monday 12 June 2023īoth Epic Games and Apple have asked the US Ninth Circuit appeals court to reconsider its ruling on the good old Epic Games v Apple legal battle. The judge joked that it may be August 13, a reference to the date that Epic initially rolled out its hotfix to the Fortnite app that caused it to be booted from the App Store, igniting the entire lawsuit. But they won't do it out of the kindness of their heart," she said.Īs far as when Rogers will hand down her ruling, that is still unknown. "Epic is here because if relief is granted, they go from a multibillion-dollar company to a maybe-trillion-dollar company, who knows. Epic's lawyer explained that Apple does not have to give away access to the iPhone ecosystem but rather get rid of restrictions that are specifically anti-competitive.Judge Rogers noted that Epic, however, likely does have "ulterior motives" in this case. "I still don't understand where you expect this to go," she said at one point. Here, Judge Rogers specifically referenced an anti-steering credit card case that previously made it to the United States Supreme Court.Judge Rogers also pressed Epic specifically on potential remedies. This refers to Apple's guidelines that state developers are not allowed to "steer" customers to make digital purchases outside of the App Store. "There's a lot of evidence in this trial that in the fore-market of devices, it's Apple's business strategy to create a particular kind of ecosystem that is attractive to purchasers," Judge Rogers said.Another focus of today's closing session was anti-steering. Judge Rogers asked both sides a variety of questions about the past three weeks of testimony.One of the points Judge Rogers repeatedly mentioned during today's trial was that customers have the ability to choose which ecosystem they use, referring to Android vs. In lieu of traditional closing arguments, today's final day of the trial consisted of three hours of back-and-forth between Judge Rogers and lawyers for Apple and Epic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |