The News: U.S. Supreme Court denies appeals of Apple and Epic in order to block an Antitrust Case -
The 16th of January, on the 16th of January on the 16th of January, the U.S. Supreme Court denied requests to hear appeals by both Apple along with Epic Games in connection with the antitrust suit Epic filed against Apple in 2020. Reuters reported.
in 2021 U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the most of Epic's charges against Apple however, she ruled against Epic's policy not using customers who are non-Apple's customers to purchase digital goods. In 2023 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 decision.
What's the best way to respond? Apple is responding?
According to Associated Press reported that this is the end of the ruling, giving developers the ability to make use of other payment options. Apple is also providing court papers late on January 16th which outline the company's plans to be in compliance with this ruling, while also retaining the vast majority of its fees.
AP said the court filing of Apple will:
- Developers are able to use hyperlinks that lead to other websites. But, Apple continues to charge 12% to 27 percentage commission for payment made via links to websites that link to.
- Inform consumers about users via the "scare screen" upon clicking the link which leads users to a different payment method, notifying users that Apple does not have any obligation to the purchase in relation to privacy or security.
- Institute to let go of a procedure that AP declares "potentially difficult" before allowing buttons that point externally or links to show inside iPhone or iPad apps, citing Apple's "effort to reduce the chance of scams, fraud and misinformation."
How Epic Games Are Insisting
AP said that the document outlining the above plans "provoked accusations that Apple was not acting in good faith, and could lead to more dispute over legality," apparently quoting Epic Games Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney's X (formerly called Twitter) tweet which reads "Apple presented a false "compliance plan' in order to obtain the approval of the District Court."
Sweeney further explained the listing of "glaring issues we've discovered so far," concluding with " Epic will contest Apple's compliance program with a bad motive at District Court" and alongside uploading a photo of the "scare screens" Apple has included in the Developer Support update to include links to buy from outside.
In the morning on Tuesday, Sweeney had posted mixed views, stating that it was an "shocking" decision of the Supreme Court choosing not to accept appeals was "A awful outcome for all developers" but he pointed out it was a "great chance" for developers " developers can begin using their rights, as deemed by the courts to provide US clients with lower costs online."
Extra Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
On the 17th of January Reuters reported that Apple requested the judge to order Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal fees as well as other charges. Reuters states that Apple's request stems from "a lower court ruling that found in the court that Epic Games breached a developer agreement signed in 2010" wherein "Epic was required to compensate for the costs of costs associated with legal proceedings, loss as well as other costs arising in the event of a violation."
Similar reading on Epic and. Apple as well as Epic with respect to. Google:
More About
This article first appeared on here
This post was first seen on here