Epic says Apple doesn't meet the mark to stay App Store injunction
Epic has filed its opposition to Apple's appeal that requested a stay on changes to the App Store, claiming Apple hasn't done enough to legally prove it will be irreparably harmed by the changes, even if they are temporary.
In U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' September ruling in the Epic-Apple lawsuit, Apple was ordered to make changes to some App Store policies. While Apple appealed the ruling on October 8, asking for a stay on the injunction, Epic has made a filing of its own arguing against Apple's appeal on the matter.
The App Store policy changes outlined by the judge include alterations to the "anti-steering" provisions, namely rules that prevent developers from telling consumers within apps that they could pay for in-app purchases and subscriptions in other ways than through the App Store's In-App Purchasing mechanism. Other related restrictions affect how developers communicate to app users.
Apple's October appeal and motion to stay the ruling aimed to put a halt to the rule changes, which Apple would have to implement by December 9, but Epic naturally disagrees with the request.
In its new filing on Friday, as spotted by Reuters, Epic offer to the court that a stay shouldn't be allowed in this instance, as Apple does not meet the legal standard for it. That standard requires Apple to demonstrate it faces irreparable harm by complying with the order, even if it is only temporary and is reversed on appeal.
Epic's reasoning for this includes Apple's comments about the ruling being positive in nature. The delay in Apple's filing to pause the injunction is also an apparent sign to Epic that the iPhone maker wouldn't necessarily be harmed.
"The public interest favors denying (Apple's appeal); an injunction is the only path to effective relief," Epic's argument reads. "History shows that in the absence of an injunction, Apple will not make any changes."
The court will be making a decision on Apple's appeal during a hearing scheduled for November 9.
Apple has still made some changes to its App Store developer guidelines surrounding anti-steering provisions, updating the rules on October 22. The changes include allowing developers more flexibility in contacting users to advertise cheaper prices elsewhere than the App Store, as well as allowing apps to request basic contact information from users.
Read on AppleInsider
In U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' September ruling in the Epic-Apple lawsuit, Apple was ordered to make changes to some App Store policies. While Apple appealed the ruling on October 8, asking for a stay on the injunction, Epic has made a filing of its own arguing against Apple's appeal on the matter.
The App Store policy changes outlined by the judge include alterations to the "anti-steering" provisions, namely rules that prevent developers from telling consumers within apps that they could pay for in-app purchases and subscriptions in other ways than through the App Store's In-App Purchasing mechanism. Other related restrictions affect how developers communicate to app users.
Apple's October appeal and motion to stay the ruling aimed to put a halt to the rule changes, which Apple would have to implement by December 9, but Epic naturally disagrees with the request.
In its new filing on Friday, as spotted by Reuters, Epic offer to the court that a stay shouldn't be allowed in this instance, as Apple does not meet the legal standard for it. That standard requires Apple to demonstrate it faces irreparable harm by complying with the order, even if it is only temporary and is reversed on appeal.
Epic's reasoning for this includes Apple's comments about the ruling being positive in nature. The delay in Apple's filing to pause the injunction is also an apparent sign to Epic that the iPhone maker wouldn't necessarily be harmed.
"The public interest favors denying (Apple's appeal); an injunction is the only path to effective relief," Epic's argument reads. "History shows that in the absence of an injunction, Apple will not make any changes."
The court will be making a decision on Apple's appeal during a hearing scheduled for November 9.
Apple has still made some changes to its App Store developer guidelines surrounding anti-steering provisions, updating the rules on October 22. The changes include allowing developers more flexibility in contacting users to advertise cheaper prices elsewhere than the App Store, as well as allowing apps to request basic contact information from users.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
But since we give them attention…
I’m gonna sue Wal-Mart if they don’t build a store next to my house and sell my homemade food in their deli for free. If they want a profit from me that’s anti-competitive, they should be working for me for free.
https://www.pcgamer.com/tim-sweeney-does-not-take-any-orders-from-tencent-says-epic/
Tencent runs one of the biggest mobile app stores in China:
https://www.hilborndigital.com/the-top-app-stores-available-in-china/
Given their big investments in Western gaming companies, it wouldn't be surprising that they want to dominate app/game distribution worldwide and they have 3 obstacles: Apple's App Store, Google's Play Store and Steam. Epic is attacking all 3.
These lawsuits would benefit Tencent who also has to pay the fee for their popular games to Apple, Google and Valve.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/court-issues-mixed-ruling-in-epic-v-3215543/
>The court found that Apple was not in violation of antitrust laws, but it did find Apple had violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court ordered Apple to allow apps to link to payment mechanisms outside of Apple’s in-app payment system (where Apple collects a 30% commission on every sale). ..........
Due to its lack of monopoly power and the absence of anticompetitive effects that outweighed procompetitive benefits, the court concluded that Apple was not in violation of U.S. or California antitrust laws, and it is not required to allow Epic or other developers to open competing game stores on iOS.
Unfair Competition Claim
While the court declined to find antitrust violations, it did hold that Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California's Unfair Competition Law. As discussed above, Apple’s anti-steering provisions restrict developers’ ability to tell customers about payment methods outside of Apple’s in-app payment system. The court concluded that the provisions were unfair because they prevented users from making an informed choice. Thus, the court issued a nationwide (but not global) injunction enjoining Apple from: (i) prohibiting apps and their metadata from containing “buttons, external links, or other calls to actions that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to [in-app payment]”; and (ii) prohibiting developers from “[c]ommunicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.”<
Also CNBC reports that Epic has not provided any user data to Tencent. But I wouldn't trust Tencent, China, CNBC or Epic.