Apple asks US judge to toss App Store injunction
By Mike Scarcella
Sept 30 (Reuters) -Apple AAPL.O has asked a U.S. judge to throw out or narrow a decision governing its lucrative App Store, saying new legal developments undermine a court order that “Fortnite” video game maker Epic Games won in its lawsuit against the tech giant.
Apple made its request on Monday in a court filing to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, where the iPhone maker and Epic have faced off for years over Apple's App Store practices.
Epic sued Apple in 2020, accusing it of violating antitrust law by controlling the market for iPhone apps and overcharging developers through a 30% commission on app transactions. Apple defeated most of the case, but Rogers in a 2021 ruling said Apple must give developers more power to steer app users to payment options outside of Apple’s ecosystem.
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.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and Epic declined to comment.
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 wrangling comes as Apple fights Epic’s claims that it has violated the court’s 2021 order and should be held in contempt. Apple has denied any wrongdoing.
Epic, as part of the contempt fight, has accused Apple of dragging its feet on producing internal corporate documents. Apple’s efforts drew a rebuke last week from a U.S. magistrate judge, who said the company had waited too long to ask for a deadline extension.
“Apple knew it wasn’t on track to make the substantial completion deadline and kept that a secret,” U.S. District Judge Thomas Hixson wrote, accusing the company of "bad behavior" aimed at prolonging the case.
The case is Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 20-cv-05640.
For Epic: Gary Bornstein and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore
For Apple: Mark Perry of Weil, Gotshal & Manges; and Cynthia Richman of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Read more:
Epic Games accuses Samsung, Google of scheme to block app rivals
Apple judge's document demands could delay Epic antitrust ruling
Apple denies violating US court order in Epic Games lawsuit
Epic Games says Apple violated App Store injunction, seeks contempt order
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
