The Apple versus Epic Games case rumbles on despite the rejection of attempts to appeal by both companies.
Yesterday one of the judges in the case effectively accused Apple of lying, and now the Cupertino company is attempting a new tactic in a bid to have the ruling either thrown out altogether or narrowed so that only Epic Games benefits …
The Epic Games ruling in brief
You can find a full recap in yesterday’s piece, but the key background is this. Epic Games said it should be able to sell in-app content outside the App Store. The court agreed, and Apple said it would allow this, but would still charge the same effective commission. Epic argued this went against the intent of the ruling, and the judge implied she was likely to agree. Apple was ordered to produce documents to back its claim that it was not motivated by commission, and made a last-minute attempt to delay production, which was rejected.
With no further appeal allowed, it seemed that all that remained to be decided was whether or not Apple was guilty of “malicious compliance.” However, a new development may change this.
Apple cites new case law
Reuters reports that Apple is citing new rulings in unrelated cases as grounds for seeking to have the Epic ruling either overturned completely, or changed so that only Epic Games is allowed to sell content outside the App Store.
In Monday’s filing, Apple said new decisions by California state courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in two unrelated cases bolster the company’s legal arguments against the injunction […]
Citing the new rulings, Apple said its practices were not unfair and that any injunction should be limited to benefiting only Epic, and not other developers.
The other cases included a proposed California consumer class action against Apple over its App Store practices, and an action in U.S. federal court accusing the Biden administration of pressuring social media companies to combat misinformation.
The only way this could happen is if Apple managed to persuade the judge who made the ruling to vacate it, or reduce its scope.
The paper said that Epic declined to comment, while Apple had not responded at the time of writing.
Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments