Apple Seeks to Pause 'Extraordinary' App Store Ruling in Epic Games Battle

[MacRumors]

Apple has filed an emergency motion asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to pause key parts of a recent ruling that dramatically changes how the App Store operates, following a contempt finding in its long-running legal battle with Fortnite maker Epic Games.

In court documents filed Wednesday, Apple called the district court's order "extraordinary" and argued it unlawfully forces the company to permanently give up control over "core aspects of its business operations."

"A federal court cannot force Apple to permanently give away free access to its products and services, including intellectual property," Apple's lawyers wrote in the motion.

Apple is specifically seeking to halt two major provisions while its appeal moves forward: a ban on charging any commissions for purchases made through external links, and restrictions on Apple's ability to set conditions for how those links appear in iOS apps.

The emergency filing comes after Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt last week for violating her 2021 injunction, which required the company to allow developers to include links to alternative payment methods. The judge determined that internal company documents showed Apple deliberately violated her earlier order.

Apple complied with the latest ruling immediately but is now asking for relief from what it describes as "punitive" measures that would cost it "hundreds of millions to billions" of dollars annually. The company wants the appeals court to issue a ruling by May 28.

"These new rules are not temporary sanctions for non-compliance that Apple can purge," the filing states. "Instead, the district court took the highly irregular step of imposing new, different, and permanent restrictions."

At the heart of the dispute is how Apple implemented the original 2021 injunction. After losing at trial, Apple created a new entitlement system that allowed developers to include links to external payment options, but imposed a 12-27% commission on purchases made through those links and restricted where the links could appear.

Epic Games argued this framework violated both the letter and spirit of the court's order, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers ultimately agreed, finding that Apple's approach "undermine[d] the spirit of the injunction by limiting competition."

In its emergency motion, Apple contends the judge exceeded her authority by essentially setting its prices at zero and taking control over how developers can present alternative payment options within apps.

Several major apps including Spotify, Kindle, and Patreon have already updated their iOS apps to include direct links to external payment methods since the ruling took effect.

Epic Games responded to Apple's emergency motion by calling it "a last ditch effort to block competition and extract massive junk fees at the expense of consumers and developers." The company added that it was "full speed ahead to bring Fortnite to iPhones and iPads in the U.S. this week."

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Seeks to Pause 'Extraordinary' App Store Ruling in Epic Games Battle

 

[iZac]

Watch out, Apple will be coming after any payments over web services soon - I mean who's going to pay to keep Safari feeling snappier every year?

 

[damienDevZ]

If I buy a game on a developers website can I link it to my Epic account and have Epic serve it to me as a download and store my saves? Or will Epic want a cut in order to do that for me?

 

[bluecoast]

I’m interested to see what wwdc is going to be like this year.

In the last few years the keynote has massively pivoted away from addressing devs to pitching new features to consumers.

ie to give users the expectation that third parties will support these new features.

Which is very different to a vibe where developers are excited about new features and actively want to use them.

You know the kind of thing that would happen, if you have a healthy relationship with your developer community.

 

[johnnytravels]

Well if your business model is stifling competition, you will eventually lose billions of dollars from a healthily maintained market putting a stop to that practice. Boo hoo.

Regarding the fact that Apple now argue one-sidedly in regard to the value they provide for developers, I propose to consider the opposite, that Apple does not provide any way of developing for and publishing on iOS (i.e. an iPhone an iPad with just stock apps).
Would the products make them the same amount of money they would be making minus the money they are now not going to make anymore because they cannot continue their anti-competitive venture.

I highly doubt that and I think this shows clearly that Apple‘s arguments aiming at compensation for providing a market for others are just veiled attempts at protecting a bottom line they are not entitled to in a fair market.

 

[johnnytravels]

If I buy a game on a developers website can I link it to my Epic account and have Epic serve it to me as a download and store my saves? Or will Epic want a cut in order to do that for me?

No, but you can simply download and play it without having to go through Epic.
The problem with the App Store is that it ties in services with restrictions on software delivery. If Apple allowed the installation from third-party sources and alternative ways of buying software, they could do whatever they wanted with their App Store.

 

[diddl14]

Apple created a closed eco system. You can love it or hate it, embrace it or steer away from it. What I don't get is why 3rd-parties, including other companies or governments should have any control over it? Consumers decide if they like Apple's choices or not. If not, they ultimately move on to something that better suits their needs.

 

[Ctrlos]

As Apple do not charge the developers of ad-funded free apps any money for hosting or delivery (largely because this is covered by the annual dev fee) I don't see why they should take a cut of XAP as well.

Instead of measures like a 3% reduction in commission Apple should have used this as an opportunity to renew their developer contract and offer them a competitive carrot rather than beat them with a punitive stick.

 

[Ctrlos]

Regarding the fact that Apple now argue one-sidedly in regard to the value they provide for developers, I propose to consider the opposite, that Apple does not provide any way of developing for and publishing on iOS (i.e. an iPhone an iPad with just stock apps).
Would the products make them the same amount of money they would be making minus the money they are now not going to make anymore because they cannot continue their anti-competitive venture.

That's an interesting consideration: is the iPhone a strong enough product by itself to not need the App Store?

Its a curious thought experiment! You'd have to use the web browser to access pretty much anything else which was Steve Jobs original vision. They would likely continue to offer web services to do things like download tickets or adding bank cards to the Wallet app. Apple might 'do a Nintendo' and become the sole publisher of games on its platform via the Arcade subscription.

They'd be faced with hundreds of lawsuits from developers who claimed doing so ruined their business, but many of these apps are just wrappers for a web service. Meta would moan about not being able to track direct device activity as if it was a bad thing!

Could the EU or FCC force them to reopen it? Unlikely given they are a private company.

 

[jclardy]

If I buy a game on a developers website can I link it to my Epic account and have Epic serve it to me as a download and store my saves? Or will Epic want a cut in order to do that for me?

If I bought an app from a developers website…oh wait. I can’t on iOS. Apple is the one who decided they want to host every app download, not developers. Hosting files is peanuts in 2025, it only matters for AAA games with 50GB downloads.

 

[aidler]

This injunction can not be allowed.

1. The change Apple is required to make is a very minor change that only makes easier what many users are already doing to avoid the 30 % commission Apple takes for every purchase inside the App Store. Users who like to use the easy and safe payment system inside the App Store can continue to do so. This will have only a very minor effect on Apple's revenue stream. In this regard, what Apple writes in its injunction is just plain wrong.
2. Apple consciously tried not to satisfy the original ruling, and Apple officials were even caught lying under oath before the court.

 

[CarlJ]

What I don't get is why 3rd-parties, including other companies or governments should have any control over it?

This. It has become popular for courts to decide that Apple should give away its services to people, on the justification that "people really want it".

The proper fix, if you don't like the entirety of what Apple is offering (speedy "Just Works" hardware and software integrated together, along with a "walled garden" ecosystem), is to _go support some other ecosystem_ not pass laws that force Apple to do things for free.

I mean, if iOS and iPhones are so fundamental that the government needs to nationalize them, then I would expect that the government would need to pay Apple several trillion dollars in compensation.

 

[UliBaer]

Simply allowing install from anywhere (like on the Mac or Android!) would avoid all this hassle. Nobody would complain against the monopolistic AppStore, if alternatives existed. This is a self inflicted problem and Apple has to live with the consequences... 🤔

 

[mrochester]

This injunction can not be allowed.

1. The change Apple is required to make is a very minor change that only makes easier what many users are already doing to avoid the 30 % commission Apple takes for every purchase inside the App Store. Users who like to use the easy and safe payment system inside the App Store can continue to do so. This will have only a very minor effect on Apple's revenue stream. In this regard, what Apple writes in its injunction is just plain wrong.
2. Apple consciously tried not to satisfy the original ruling, and Apple officials were even caught lying under oath before the court.

I think the injunction is likely to be granted as the current situation allows app developers to make use of Apple’s App Store but circumvent paying Apple most of its fee.

 

[Aeronauts]

..

 

[mrochester]

The current court system for deciding these cases is not fit for purpose with judgements and appeals dragging on for years.

There should be a panel of expert judges who decide these cases and issue final judgements with no appeals.

There is, it’s called the Supreme Court. You’ve got to go through a few layers of other courts before you get there though.

Law isn’t black and white which is why we have multiple layers of courts to test legal theory in front of different judges with different backgrounds, experiences, views and interpretations.

 

[Stuwil]

Apple created a closed eco system. You can love it or hate it, embrace it or steer away from it. What I don't get is why 3rd-parties, including other companies or governments should have any control over it? Consumers decide if they like Apple's choices or not. If not, they ultimately move on to something that better suits their needs.

Because it’s not Walmart or target for example
That’s why

 

[WarmWinterHat]

I think the injunction is likely to be granted as the current situation allows app developers to make use of Apple’s App Store but circumvent paying Apple most of its fee.

It's been that way for a long time. Spotify, Netflix, kindle, etc. none of them have paid Apple apple a penny in in-app revenue for years.

 

[macfacts]

Apple created a closed eco system. You can love it or hate it, embrace it or steer away from it. What I don't get is why 3rd-parties, including other companies or governments should have any control over it? Consumers decide if they like Apple's choices or not. If not, they ultimately move on to something that better suits their needs.

Why should the government get involved when kids want to work in coal mines.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple created a closed eco system. You can love it or hate it, embrace it or steer away from it. What I don't get is why 3rd-parties, including other companies or governments should have any control over it? Consumers decide if they like Apple's choices or not. If not, they ultimately move on to something that better suits their needs.

well if you have a superior product then you will simply grow anyway and both developers and users will come.

alwasy so strange that Steam manages to be so successful and dominating despite being so open to competitors 🤔. Both Microsoft and Apple seems incapable to strong arm their will against them, heck even large publishers like EA, Microsoft and Ubisoft cant help but have their games published on steam...

how strange...
If athe iOS app store is so great and superior to any alternatives then it will have no issue to continue to dominate.

 

[mrochester]

It's been that way for a long time. Spotify, Netflix, kindle, etc. none of them have paid Apple apple a penny in in-app revenue for years.

I know, and Apple is fine with that as long as the app doesn't contain or mention how to purchase the content. The change required is Apple can no longer restrict that, but that is the very way in which they monetise access to iOS users. If app developers can very easily circumvent making that payment to Apple, then as far as Apple is concerned, there is a problem.

If the injuction stands then I bet we'll very quickly see Apple alter the developer agreement to a fee for service (with fees waived for those who only accept Apple payments in their app I'd expect).

 

[Stuwil]

I think the injunction is likely to be granted as the current situation allows app developers to make use of Apple’s App Store but circumvent paying Apple most of its fee.

Ok
However in most walks of life when a government or court rule in favour of a certain way then normally stays in place
Until the appeal is heard

 

[mrochester]

Ok
However in most walks of life when a government or court rule in favour of a certain way then normally stays in place
Until the appeal is heard

Or an emergency injuction is granted, which is what Apple have applied for here.

The injuction is likely to be granted if Apple can show that the judge's ruling will have a material impact on Apple (loss of income, forfeiture of control over it's own products etc). In that sense the changes mandated would be paused until the appeal has been heard because of the damage it would do to Apple in the meantime.

 

[Aeronauts]

..

 

[mrochester]

It’s a waste of time and money going through all the court layers if companies can simply appeal every judgement and drag the process out for years.

These cases should go straight to the highest court available, if that’s the Supreme Court then fine go straight there.

Not possible, because the number of cases far outstrips the capacity of the Supreme Court. Hence they have to filter through the lower courts first. The reality is this issue is not important enough to be heard by the Supreme Court; they have already declined it once. The Supreme Court believes the lower courts can sort it out.