CARY – In losing on almost all the points it made in an antitrust suit against Apple after it banned Epic’s “Fortnite,” Epic Game’s one “victory” remains a threat to the $3 trillion tech giant.
Apple as Reuters describes it “could not prohibit developers from providing links and buttons to payment options in their apps that take consumers outside of the App Store.”
Epic sought to overturn basically every limit Apple placed on Epic and other companies in the App Store with Epic being kicked out.
Now Apple wants the ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers nearly two years ago overturned. A U.S. appeals court on Friday upheld Rogers’ decision, Reuters noted. That triggered Apple’s appeal to the high court.
Apple says the decision will force changes in its “business model” for the App Store:
“There is good cause for the stay because if the mandate issues, Apple will be required to change its business model to comply with the injunction before judicial review has been completed.”
Apple also says customers will be harmed:
“The undisputed evidence establishes that the injunction will limit Apple’s ability to protect users from fraud, scams, malware, spyware, and objectionable content. On the other hand, there would be no prejudice to Epic from a stay: Epic is not an iOS app developer and does not stand to benefit from the injunction. Given these extraordinary circumstances, a stay pending Apple’s petition for a writ of certiorari is warranted.”
Fortnite tease: Tim Sweeney tweets Epic Games is coming back to Apple’s world
Epic, too, is seeking relief from the Supreme Court over the case. It has labeled its campaign as “Free Fortnite.” The Cary company also is fighting Google over similar issues.
“Apple Inc. respectfully requests that this Court stay the mandate pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari that Apple intends to file in the Supreme Court,” Apple said in its latest filing made July 3 and first reported by Reuters.
“The district court issued a sweeping injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing its anti-steering rules against all developers of iOS apps
offered for distribution in the United States, even though the sole named plaintiff (Epic Games, Inc.) did not seek or obtain class certification, and did not prove that an injunction running in favor of non-parties was necessary to make it whole. The injunction cannot be reconciled with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which expressly addresses injunctive relief extending beyond the named plaintiff, and exceeds the district court’s authority under Article III, which limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies.”
You can read the full filing online.
Epic Games-Apple antitrust battle resumes; Justice Dept. could help Fortnite case
