Epic Games asks the Supreme Court to dismiss Apple’s petition in the App Store case

Epic Games is asking the US Supreme Court to reject Apple’s attempt to challenge two rulings in its long-running legal battle over purchases outside the App Store. Here are the details.

A little context

last month, Apple introduced Appeal to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn two lower court rulings on the App Store ban in a long-running legal battle with Epic Games.

One of the rulings concerns a civil contempt finding that Apple violated the order. Back in 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told Apple to allow developers to redirect users to purchases outside of the App Store.

Apple, in turn, imposed a 27% commission on these transactions, along with restrictions on how the buttons could appear and a so-called “fear screen” that warned users about the dangers of purchases outside the App Store.

In subsequent proceedings challenging Apple’s enforcement of the order, the company successfully argued that the wording in the original order did not prohibit charging commissions for purchases outside the App Store. Even so, Apple failed to overturn the broader civil contempt finding.

The second decision concerns the scope of the App Store ban. According to Apple, applying the Epic v. Apple decision to all developers with apps in the US storefront goes beyond the limits set by the US Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA. In that case, the court held that injunctions generally should be tailored to provide relief only to parties directly involved in the case, not to everyone affected by the challenged policy.

In a filing last month, Apple asked the US Supreme Court to overturn the contempt finding as well as the scope of mandate changes in the App Store.

Which brings us to today.

Epic Games withdraws at Apple’s request

a application Appealing to the US Supreme Court today, Epic Games argues that the court should deny Apple’s request to hear the lawsuit.

In the document, Epic breaks down Apple’s arguments based on Apple’s own documentation as well as past work with similar buildings.

From the Epic documentation:

Apple’s petition contains two questions, both of which are based on a mischaracterization of the decisions below, neither of which warrants review.

In the civil contempt case, Epic claims that Apple violated both the spirit and the letter of the law when it charged a 27% commission on purchases outside of the App Store, not the spirit of the law as Apple claims.

Here is the Epic:

Contrary to Apple’s contention, the Ninth Circuit did not hold Apple in contempt on the theory that the text of the Order permitted Apple’s commission, but the spirit of the order prohibited it. Instead, the court found that the commission violated the express terms of the district court’s decision.

Epic argues that Apple should have consulted with the court before applying for the 27% Off-App Store commission, citing a similar case in which the court held that a defendant “(a) who plans to engage in conduct close to the line may ask the district court to “modify, clarify, or construct” the order. But it cannot waive those options, vacate the order, and then claim that contempt is unavailable because ‘the exact regulation has been worked out . . . specifically.’ not ordered.’ The court explained that a contrary rule would “give a major boost to the insubordination testing program.”

Trump refutes Apple’s claims that Epic’s lawsuit against CASA is entirely about App Store competition, and that unless the rulings apply to all developers, he won’t get the “full relief” he wants.

Here’s Epic citing a past decision justifying the scope of the ruling:

Third, the panel rejected Apple’s challenges to the scope of the Order. The court recognized that “the test is whether “the injunctive relief will offer full relief to plaintiffs before the court.” But it “found that the Order is consistent with the basic tenet of CASA because its scope is limited to Epic’s injuries as a developer and game distributor, not to other developers.” The court then “agreed with Epic(d)” that “limiting the April 30 Order in the manner proposed by Apple would not facilitate competition.

Epic’s filing reads like a blueprint for the arguments the US Supreme Court will make if it decides to hear the case, much like Apple’s filing reads like a blueprint for what the legal team will argue if the case is heard.

There is currently no word on when the US Supreme Court will act on Apple’s petition, but the expectation is that the justices could decide whether to hear the case before the summer break, potentially in late June or early July.

To read the full document with Epic’s arguments, follow this link.

It’s worth checking out on Amazon