For context, this ruling arose from the court's determination that Apple's anti-steering policies, which prohibit developers from directing or informing users about third-party iOS storefronts, were anticompetitive.Īpple is continuing to challenge the decision, but has requested a halt to the court's order, arguing that a nationwide injunction against its anti-steering practices is an excessive response to the alleged antitrust violations in California. According to a court filing on July 3, obtained by Reuters, Apple argues that the appeals court's nationwide injunction against Apple, based on alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, represents judicial overreach. Apple case, the iPhone maker is now seeking to petition the Supreme Court to reconsider the second-instance verdict. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which largely upheld the decision in the Epic Games v. However, the court also mandated that Apple must allow third-party purchase options within apps.Īfter the April ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of Apple on nine out of ten counts in the original case. While Apple's countersuit was dismissed, the U.S. Apple responded by removing Fortnite from the App Store, leading Epic to file an antitrust lawsuit. The legal battle began in 2020 when Epic made changes to Fortnite to bypass Apple's payment system and avoid their 30% fee on in-game purchases. This would be its second request for appellate review, as it has already appealed the initial decision in late 2021. 21-16506, 6/7/23.Apple is seeking to bring its Epic Games case before the U.S. “Consistent with the Supreme Court’s direction, this court has often reiterated that the Rule of Reason requires ‘a balancing of the arrangement’s positive and negative effects on competition,’” Epic wrote.Įpic also argued that the majority’s remaining arguments for refusing to conduct a rigorous balancing analysis are not persuasive. “That is just wrong.”Įpic wrote in its petition that the panel’s ruling conflicts with Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, which requires a balancing of pro- and anticompetitive consequences. “The panel stated for the first time that a UCL claim is not barred where the parallel antitrust claim fails on evidentiary (as distinguished from legal) grounds,” Apple stated. In its petition for a rehearing, Apple argued that the Ninth Circuit panel’s affirmation of that injunction warrants a review. It means that Apple must allow competing app stores and payment methods on its system. The Ninth Circuit panel in April mostly sided with Apple in the case, but upheld a lower court’s ruling that, under California’s unfair competition law, Apple must drop its “anti-steering” provision and allow app developers to direct consumers to other companies for payment. The ruling enjoined Apple from enforcing its in-app payment policy under California’s Unfair Competition Law and ordered Epic to pay counsel fees in the companies’ contract battle.Įpic, maker of the blockbuster Fortnite game, sued Apple in 2020 after the tech giant kicked Fortnite out of the App Store and threatened to end access for all apps built with Epic’s game engine, Unreal. are asking the full Ninth Circuit to revisit decisions made in a high-profile antitrust case centered on Apple’s operation of its App Store.īoth companies on Wednesday filed petitions with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for a full-court review of an April three-judge panel decision.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |