Epic said it was opposing Apple’s request to stay the lower court’s App Store commission proceedings while the Supreme Court considered part of the case. Here are the details.
Epic opposes Apple’s request to stop the proceedings
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers a few days ago agreed to hear Apple’s motion to end the litigation will address what commissions, if any, Apple may receive on purchases outside of the App Store.
Then Apple presented official request of the lower court with justification as to why the proceedings should be suspended The Supreme Court decides on whether the company was properly held in civil contempt for violating the 2021 order.
In a 2021 order, Judge Rogers ordered Apple to allow developers to direct users to payment options outside of the App Store. Apple followed suit by allowing external purchase links, but imposed a 27% commission and restrictions on how those links were presented.
It later ruled that the actions violated the order and deprived Apple of civil contempt, while Apple argued that the original order did not expressly prohibit it from charging commissions on purchases completed outside of the App Store.
With a civil contempt complaint under review by the Supreme Court, Apple argued in its latest request to stay the lower court proceedings because the Supreme Court’s ruling could eliminate or reshape the legal basis for determining what commissions Apple can charge on foreign purchases.
Now Epic has submitted its application the answerStrongly opposes Apple’s request:
It’s Apple’s the third an attempt to delay the inevitable: a hearing to evaluate Apple’s proposed fee for managed transactions. This latest attempt must be rejected for the same reason: Apple’s previous attempts at delay have failed: the Ninth Circuit’s unequivocal conclusion (not mentioned anywhere in Apple’s Petition) is that “(e)even if the Supreme Court were to agree with Apple’s arguments (with respect), the remand would still proceed, especially the commission on the issue. and these processes may appear similar, if not identical, regardless of certiorari.” Order granting motion to reconsider stay and to deny stay, App. Dr. 192.1, at 3 (emphasis added) (“Order Denying Stay”). These processes can and should go forward now. All before the Supreme Court is a narrow question about the standard for finding contempt. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on Apple’s proposed question of the scope of this Court’s Order, and the Ninth Circuit gave this Court express authority to consider whether or how to change that Order—a question entirely unrelated to contempt. Therefore, this Court should follow the mandate of the Ninth Circuit, deny Apple’s request for a final stay, and proceed with the remand.
Epic argues that the Supreme Court is not expected to rule until June 2027, with Apple’s latest request being another attempt to delay competition with its in-app purchase system.
Epic also adds that, contrary to Apple’s argument, a lower court must still appoint an appropriate commission regardless of how the Supreme Court rules. So, Epic says, “it’s most efficient to start this process now.”
According to the agreed briefing schedule, Apple is expected to file its response in support of the stay request today, July 13, after Epic files its response.
After that, if the court rejects Apple’s motion, the company will have to submit an external communications commission proposal within 24 hours of the judge’s decision. However, if Apple’s request is granted, the lower court proceedings will be stayed while the Supreme Court hears Apple’s appeal of the contempt ruling.
Do you think a lower court case should be stayed while the Supreme Court considers a civil contempt case? Let us know in the comments.
It’s worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. More.
