Apple and Epic have filed new requests for the court to maintain or overturn the final stay in the ongoing App Store legal battle. Here are the details.
Some final context on this widespread case
Last Monday, April 6, 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.
Apple filed the motion on Friday, April 3, and the court granted it on April 6.
That Monday, Epic filed a motion (two, actually. We’ll get to that) asking the court to reconsider its decision to grant Apple’s motion to stay.
Epic argued in its lawsuit that the court’s ruling was premature because under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Apple would have had 10 days to file its response to the request to stay the mandate.
That’s right, this federal rule says that a court can act before that 10-day period, “but only if the court gives the parties reasonable notice that it intends to act sooner.” But according to Epic, that wasn’t the case.
So on April 6, Epic filed two motions: one asking the court to reconsider the April 6 order to grant Apple’s motion to stay, and a second motion opposing Apple’s original motion to stay the order from April 3.
Epic also called Apple’s motion to proceed “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.”
Apple responds
Yesterday, Apple responded to Epic’s motion asking the court to reconsider the stay of the mandate.
In it, Apple argues that there is no reason to reconsider the stay and disputes Epic’s damage claims. Apple adds that Epic has not provided evidence that developers have delayed adopting alternative payment options due to uncertainty.
Apple notes that it does not charge commissions on related purchases when it seeks Supreme Court review, arguing that maintaining the stay preserves the existing framework and potentially avoids unnecessary lower court proceedings.
See Apple’s full response below:
Epic answers
Earlier today, Epic responded to Apple’s motion asking the court to reconsider the stay of the mandate.
In its response, Epic argues that the stay is already causing harm by creating uncertainty around commissions, which in turn discourages developers from adopting alternative payment options, thereby delaying the competitive changes envisioned by the court’s original order.
Epic adds that Apple has argued that the Supreme Court appeal will not obviate the need for further proceedings in the lower court, arguing that Apple has shown no real need for a stay, so both proceedings can move forward simultaneously.
See Epic’s full response below:
Do you think the court should lift the arrest or keep it? Let us know in the comments.
It’s worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. More.
