Apple has appealed one of its litigation against Epic Games, although it largely won the case.
IGiant’s legal stoush with Epic concerned the game developer’s decision to sell virtual goods directly from its hit game Fortnite, and do so for less than the prices offered in Apple’s App Store. Epic did this, in part, to point out that Apple’s 30% cut in in-app purchases inflates the prices of digital apps and products.
Apple responded by starting Fortnite from the App Store and canceling Epic’s developer account.
The litigation was taken to court and Apple largely won – U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple was not a monopoly and ruled in favor of the fruity business on nine of the ten bosses. ‘charge.
But Epic Games won over a leader that concerns California’s “anti-leadership” laws – laws that prohibit limiting the choice of service providers.
To understand the direction, heed the California auto insurance claim rules. Insurance companies like to “steer” policyholders to repairers they know can do the job for cheaply, saving insurers money. California law believes that “management” denies consumers choice, so it allows policyholders to choose their preferred repairer regardless of the insurer’s preference.
Judge Rogers found that by insisting on only allowing the App Store for purchases, Apple was on the wrong side of California’s management laws and issued an injunction denying Apple the right to ban developers from ‘use – or even suggest – third-party payment options.
And as the American law firm Sullivan and Cromwell wrote in a Note: “The court injunction allows application developers to avoid Apple’s 30% buying commission by giving them the ability to direct their customers to cheaper alternatives.”
Apple is therefore at risk of losing the smooth, solid and consistent revenue stream that it believes is essential to fund the ongoing secure operations of the App Store.
Hence this call.
Apple also requested a stay of Judge Rodgers’ injunction, in a deposit [PDF] however, it is necessary because following its demands “would upset the prudent balance between developers and customers provided by the App Store, and irreparably harm both Apple and consumers.
“The requested suspension will allow Apple to protect consumers and safeguard its platform as the company resolves the complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological and economic issues that any revision of this directive would involve.”
The case also argues that Apple will win on the appeal and that Epic will not suffer any prejudice if the injunction is stayed because it does not have any products in the App Store.
Another thread of Apple’s argument claims that the injunction may have been applicable by the time the first case was decided, but as the app market and the App Store evolve, it could be a blunt instrument that prevents the company from responding to a changing market.
“Apple is working hard to solve these difficult problems in a changing world, improving the flow of information without compromising the consumer experience,” the file said. “A stay of the injunction would allow Apple to do so in a way that maintains the integrity of the ecosystem, and which could avoid the need for any direction injunction.”
This hint that Apple might be open to arrangements that are not considered piloting is quite an admission, but also a nod to the realities the company faces after allowing certain third-party payments to be made. Japan, by changing policies in the United States to reduce commissions paid by small developers and the introduction of South Korean law requiring access to third-party payment systems. ®