Information: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear appeals filed by Apple and Epic as part of an Antitrust Case -

16th January, the 16th of January on the 16th of January, it was announced that the U.S. Supreme Court denied the appeals of both Apple as well as Epic Games regarding the antitrust suit Epic is bringing against Apple in the year 2020. Reuters reported.

In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers disregarded most of Epic's claims against Apple but, she decided in favor of Epic's policies against developers who transfer users out of Apple's system for the purchase of digital products. Then in 2023, a judge from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 ruling.

How do you think Apple responds

According to the Associated Press reported that this is a way to end the restriction of a transaction, giving developers greater freedom to utilize alternative payment methods. Apple has also sent documents before the court on the 16th January where it details its plans to comply with the orders but still retain all of their expenses.

AP continued that Apple's Tuesday court filing showed that they are planning to:

• Developers are allowed to make hyperlinks to point to different websites, however Apple has been charging between 12% and 27% commission fees for payments made through links to websites that are not Apple's.
• It is essential to inform users via an "scare screen" when they click a banner that redirects users to an alternative payment method as well as remind users that Apple has no responsibility to those transactions in regards to privacy or security.
• Institute an application process to get pre-approval, which is a procedure that the AP declares is "potentially complicated" prior to allowing hyperlinks with external points or buttons to show up in iPhone or iPad applications. Apple's "effort to limit fraudulent actions as well as misinformation, frauds, and various other fraudulent activities."

How Epic Games is responding

AP reported that the article outlining the above plans "provoked claims that Apple has acted in bad faith honest faith which created conditions to further dispute regarding legal matters," apparently quoting Epic Games Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney's X (formerly also known as Twitter) Twitter post which stated "Apple has submitted false compliance plan' for the order of District Court. District Court."

Sweeney added the list of "glaring problems we've found so this time," concluding with " Epic will contest Apple's poor-faith compliance strategy at District Court" and posting an image of the "scare photo" Apple has included in the Developer Support Update on the option to buy externally.

In the day before, Sweeney had posted mixed opinions, declaring that Supreme Court choosing not to take appeals into this case was "A awful outcome for all developers" as well as pointing out the " developers can begin exercising their right as a judge in a court to notify US customers about cheaper prices on the web."

Additional Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments

The 17th day of January Reuters reported that Apple is also asking for a judge to make Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal fees as well as other costs. Reuters says that Apple's request was spurred due to "a lower court's ruling that said Epic Games violated a developer agreement that was signed in 2010" according to which "Epic committed to covering the costs of financial and legal damages and additional costs resulting in the event of a violation."

   Similar reading on Epic as well as Google. Apple and Epic against. Google:

   about  

The article was first posted here. here

This post was first seen on here