Epic Games has persuaded the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn an earlier ruling that temporarily halted enforcement of a ruling requiring Apple to relax certain App Store rules while it appeals to the Supreme Court. Here are the details.
We continue from where we left off
Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit It granted Apple’s motion stay a final judgment requires him to do relax certain App Store rules related to alternative payment methods.
After the court decision, Epic filed two motions. The former argued that Epic did not have enough time to prepare a response to Apple’s request for a stay, and the latter asked the court to dismiss Apple’s initial request for a stay.
At the time, Epic said Apple’s stay motion was “another delaying tactic to prevent the court from imposing significant and permanent restrictions on Apple’s ability to charge unnecessary fees for third-party payments.”
This forced Apple to do so write an answerarguing that there is no reason to reconsider the stay and that keeping it in place would avoid unnecessary proceedings in lower courts while seeking Supreme Court review.
Epic, in turn, wrote a reply Apple had not shown any real need for a stay, he said, adding that the Supreme Court appeal would not eliminate the need for further proceedings in the lower court, so both proceedings would proceed simultaneously.
Which brings us to today.
The court overturned the suspension
Tonight, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Epic’s motion for reconsideration, cancels its previous decision to retain the mandate.
In its decision, the court said it was persuaded by Epic’s arguments that Apple had not shown that the Supreme Court could hear the case or would reverse the ruling, as well as Epic’s argument that “Apple failed to show good cause to sustain our previous stay.”
From the decision:
Apple has not demonstrated that it would be irreparably harmed by any litigation on remand unless our decision is stayed. Instead, Apple argues that an injunction on the commission issue would be “premature.” Even if the Supreme Court were to agree with Apple’s arguments, there would still be remand proceedings, particularly on the commission issue, and those proceedings would appear similar, if not identical, regardless of certiorari.
Accordingly, we conclude that Apple has failed to meet the requirements under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d).
The document explains that “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d) requires that a party seeking to stay the writ pending a petition for certiorari must show “that the petition will present a substantial question and that there is good cause to stay.””
You can read the full document below:
After the decision, Epic Games It led to X “Apple’s charging of unnecessary fees for purchases made outside the app store harms consumers and developers and violates the law,” it claims. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney added:
We’ve reached out to Apple for comment and will update this post if we hear back.
It’s worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. More.
