There has been a new development in the App Store-centered legal fight between Apple and Epic Games, which has been going on for years. Epic Games submitted its official response to the court, requesting the rejection of Apple’s application to the US Supreme Court last month. Apple had previously requested that two important decisions given by lower courts be overturned, targeting restrictions on payment methods other than the App Store. Epic, on the other hand, argues that these requests lack legal justification and that the decisions of the lower courts are misinterpreted.
In the application made last month, Apple specifically requested the re-evaluation of two separate decisions. The first of these was about the “civil contempt” decision given against the company on the grounds that it did not comply with the court order. The second topic involved discussions regarding the scope of changes that should be implemented in the App Store.
The case between Apple and Epic Games gained a new dimension with the decision made by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021. The court ruled that Apple must allow developers to direct users to payment methods other than the App Store. Apple made some adjustments after this decision. However, the company continued to receive a 27 percent commission from transactions made outside the App Store. In addition, it imposed various limitations on developers’ link and button designs. The warning screen, publicly known as the “scare screen”, which is shown when users turn to out-of-app payments, was also among these applications.
In the subsequent process, Apple was found right on some points, arguing that there was no statement in the text of the court decision that clearly prohibited receiving commissions from out-of-app payments. Despite this, the company was unable to eliminate the general finding that it had violated the court order.
Epic Games argues that court decisions were implemented correctly
In the new document submitted by Epic Games to the Supreme Court, Apple’s two main claims are opposed in detail. According to the company, Apple’s application misinterprets the decisions of lower courts and does not provide a legal reason to re-examine the file.
One of Epic’s most striking defenses was regarding the 27 percent commission application. Although Apple was criticized for acting against the spirit of the court decision, it maintained that it did not violate the text of the decision. Epic states that this is not true. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Apple violated not only the intent of the order, but also the express terms of the court order, according to the company.
In addition, Epic argues that Apple should seek an opinion or explanation from the court before charging commissions for out-of-app purchases. Citing past cases of a similar nature, the company reminds that parties wishing to act within the limits of the court decision can first apply for modification or clarification of the decision. According to Epic, instead of choosing this method, Apple went directly to implementation and later appealed the infringement decision.
The second important title of the file is about the scope of App Store regulations. Apple, US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Citing the CASA decision as an example, he argues that injunctions should only be directed at the parties to the case. According to the company, the application of the decisions made in favor of Epic to all developers in the US App Store goes beyond legal limits.
Epic does not agree with this opinion. According to the company, the case is not limited to the damage suffered by Epic Games; It also concerns the competitive conditions in the App Store ecosystem. For this reason, it is deemed necessary to implement the decisions in a way that covers all developers in order to achieve the full legal solution that the court aims for. Epic reminds that the appeals court also rejected Apple’s objections for the same reason.
It is currently unknown when the US Supreme Court will rule on Apple’s application. However, the expectation in legal circles is that the court will decide whether to review the file at the end of June or at the beginning of July, before the summer break. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, one of the tech industry’s most notable antitrust and platform policy cases will be taken to a new level. Despite this, the current decisions of the lower courts against Apple remain in force.