Epic Games is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Apple’s latest attempt to challenge two rulings in its long-running legal fight over off-App-Store purchases. Here are the details.
A bit of context
Last month, Apple filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to reverse two lower court rulings on the App Store injunction in its long-running legal battle with Epic Games.
One ruling concerns the civil contempt finding that held Apple violated the injunction. Back in 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told Apple to allow developers to steer users to off-App Store purchases.
Apple, in turn, applied a 27% commission to these transactions, alongside restrictions that included how buttons could look like, and what became known as the “scare screen” that warned users about the dangers of making off-App Store purchases.
In later proceedings challenging Apple’s implementation of the injunction, the company successfully argued that the text in the original injunction didn’t prohibit it from charging a commission on off-App Store purchases. Even so, Apple was unable to overturn the broader civil contempt finding.
The second ruling concerns the scope of the App Store injunction. According to Apple, applying the Epic v. Apple decision to all developers who have apps in the U.S. storefront goes beyond the limits the U.S. Supreme Court set in Trump v. CASA. In this case, the court held that injunctions should generally be tailored to provide relief only to the parties directly involved in the case, rather than to everyone affected by the challenged policy.
In last month’s petition, Apple asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the contempt finding, as well as the scope of the mandatede App Store changes.
Which brings us to today.
Epic Games shoots back at Apple’s request
In a petition filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court, Epic Games makes its case as to why the court should deny Apple’s request for it to hear the case.
In the document, Epic picks apart Apple’s arguments, based on Apple’s own filings, as well as on past cases with similar premises.
From Epic’s filing:
Apple’s petition presents two questions, both founded on a mischaracterization of the decisions below, neither warranting review.
On the issue of civil contempt, Epic argues that Apple violated both the spirit and the text of the law when it charged a 27% commission on off-App Store purchases, rather than just the spirit of the law, as Apple argues.
Here’s Epic:
Contrary to Apple’s premise, the Ninth Circuit did not hold Apple in contempt on the theory that the text of the Injunction allowed Apple’s commission, but the spirit of the injunction prohibited it. Instead, the court found that the commission violated the express terms of the district court’s order.
Epic argues that Apple should have consulted with the court before applying the 27% off-App Store commission, citing a case with a similar premise where the court decided that “[a] defendant planning to engage in conduct close to the line can ask the district court ‘for a modification, clarification or construction of the order.’ But it cannot forgo those options, violate the injunction, and then claim contempt is unavailable because ‘the precise arrangement worked out . . . was not specifically enjoined.’ A contrary rule, the Court explained, ‘would give tremendous impetus to the program of experimentation with disobedience of the law.’”
On the issue of Trump v. CASA, Epic refutes Apple’s premise by stating that its lawsuit is about App Store competition as a whole, and that unless the decisions are applied to all developers, it won’t achieve the “complete relief” it seeks.
Here’s Epic, citing a past decision that justified the scope of the injunction:
Third, the panel rejected Apple’s challenges to the scope of the Injunction. The court acknowledged that the “test ‘is whether an injunction will offer complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.’” But it “determined that the Injunction is consistent with CASA’s underlying principle because its ‘scope is tied to Epic’s injuries’ as a developer and games distributor, not to the other developers’ injuries.” The court further “agree[d] with Epic” that “limiting the April 30 Order in the manner proposed by Apple would not facilitate the competition.
Epic’s document reads like a blueprint of the arguments it will likely make if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to take up the case, much like Apple’s petition reads like the blueprint of what its legal team will argue if the case is heard.
Right now, there is no information on when the U.S. Supreme Court will act on Apple’s petition, but the expectation is that the justices could decide whether to take the case before their summer break, potentially in late June or early July.
To read the full document with Epic’s arguments, follow this link.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
