Epic Games v. Apple: the fight for the future of the App Store

Apple, the most valuable company in the world, will have to work this weekend to meet a legal deadline on Monday. That’s after Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson on Friday denied the company’s request for more time to produce 1.3 million documents related to App Store changes it made in January to comply with a 2021 court order.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the Epic lawsuit that resulted in those changes, told Apple’s legal team on May 31st it would need to produce all documents related to how it decided the new App Store rules after Epic challenged them. Document discovery was then referred to Hixson, who quoted part of a transcript from the hearing when he set Monday’s deadline back in August:

Read Article >

Epic Games isn’t done with Apple. A 2021 ruling forced Apple to allow developers of App Store apps to link to outside payments, and Epic has now filed a motion asking Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to enforce her original order.

Epic says Apple’s updated developer policy that still reserves 27 percent of outside payments (or 12 percent for small developers) for Apple itself is still unjustified. Epic argues these fees are “essentially the same” as those the company charges for using its payments system.

Read Article >

Epic’s plans to release its own third-party app store on iOS in the EU could be in trouble after Apple terminated the developer account it planned to use. In a blog post published today, the company shared a letter sent by Apple’s lawyers, which called Epic “verifiably untrustworthy” and said Apple does not believe that Epic will comply with its contractual commitments under its developer agreement.

“Please be advised that Apple has, effective immediately, terminated the Developer Program membership of Epic Games Sweden AB,” the letter — which is dated March 2nd — states. It cites Apple’s “contractual right” to terminate its Developer Program License Agreement with the company at “Apple’s sole discretion.”

Read Article >

Epic is not pleased with how Apple has responded to court orders. It thinks Apple’s new 27 percent tax on developers that link to non-Apple payment methods defies a court order to let developers provide those links and yesterday notified the court that it plans to lay out exactly how.

To refresh, District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple in 2021 to let developers link to outside payment methods, and it immediately appealed (despite having called it a “resounding victory”). Apple’s final appeal of the court order was denied earlier this month, and the company was forced to change its tune on in-app payments. But it barely did so — the 27 percent commission isn’t much less than Apple’s 30 percent in-app payments fee, while other requirements for allowing outside payment links are so onerous that developers may not want to do so. For instance, developers will have to create transaction reports for Apple every 15 days so the company can make sure it’s getting its money.

Read Article >

Almost three years after the Epic v. Apple trial reached its conclusion, Apple is finally following a court order to let app developers link to outside payment methods. But its solution is being met with backlash.

Apple is giving developers the green light to send app users outside the built-in iOS payment system for the first time, following the instructions of a California court ruling in 2021. Under the terms of the injunction, Apple can’t prevent developers from including links, buttons, and other calls to action that direct users to outside payment methods. In a filing outlining the changes, Apple says it has “fully complied” with the order — but has it really?

Read Article >

Apple has updated its App Store policies to spell out how developers can link to outside payment platforms, as reported by 9to5Mac. Developers will still owe Apple a cut if they use an outside payment platform. Apple will take a 27 percent cut (as opposed to the 30 percent in many cases) or 12 percent if a developer is part of the App Store Small Business Program, according to a support page about external purchase links.

Section 3.1.1(a) of the App Store Review Guidelines lays down more of the new rules for developers who want to link to alternative payment methods, like how they have to apply for an “entitlement” to enable them. Developers also can’t exclusively receive payments from outside Apple’s walled garden; they’ll also have to offer Apple’s in-app purchase system in their apps.

Read Article >

The Supreme Court has denied a request to hear an antitrust dispute between Apple and Fortnite publisher Epic Games. It rejected two petitions, one from each company, this morning — leaving the case largely, but not entirely, a win for Apple.

Epic v. Apple began in 2020 after Epic implemented its own payment system for Fortnite’s virtual currency, bypassing Apple’s commission on in-app purchases. Apple banned Epic from its iOS App Store and Epic filed a lawsuit in response, claiming the App Store — and Apple’s overall walled-garden approach to iOS — violated US antitrust laws. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected most of Apple’s claims and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed the decision.

Read Article >

After years of back-and-forth battling between Fortnite publisher Epic Games and Apple, the gaming company filed a writ of certiorari asking the US Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling in their antitrust case. Epic has argued that Apple unfairly monopolizes the mobile app space with iOS and its in-app purchasing system, thereby making billions on commissions.

Epic is asking the Supreme Court to review its case by way of clarifying points of antitrust law that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals relied on in making its ruling in April. On Thursday, Reuters reported Apple has filed an argument (PDF) asking the Supreme Court to throw out the order from the lower courts that requires changes to its App Store rules.

Read Article >

The Supreme Court has rejected Fortnite publisher Epic’s request to make Apple loosen its App Store rules as a legal battle progresses. As first reported by Bloomberg and Reuters, Justice Elena Kagan declined to vacate a stay on a lower court order about Apple’s anti-steering rules, which limit how iOS app developers can direct users to alternate payment methods. Kagan did not issue an explanation for the decision, but Epic’s petition was noted as denied on the Supreme Court’s website.

The district court order was one of Epic’s limited wins in a high-profile antitrust case over iOS App Store in-app purchase fees. A judge determined that Apple had violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by preventing developers from using links to direct users to payment methods outside the App Store.

Read Article >

On Monday, Apple was granted a motion putting a hold on the appeals court ruling that would push the company to undo its “anti-steering” rules and let outside developers link to third-party payment mechanisms. The mandate is stayed for 90 days so Apple can file its request that the Supreme Court take up the case.

Apple’s anti-steering rules limit how developers can direct users to subscription or in-app purchase payments outside Apple’s App Store ecosystem, where it takes a cut of revenue. A district court found that Apple had not generally violated antitrust law with its “walled garden” approach to iOS, but it ordered it to drop rules against letting developers include “calls to action” for outside payment methods.

Read Article >

An appeals court has upheld the status quo in Epic’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple, affirming a decision that was largely a victory for Apple. In a ruling delivered on Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Apple’s closed App Store and security restrictions didn’t violate antitrust law but that Apple couldn’t maintain anti-steering rules that prevent users from learning about alternate payment options.

Apple spokesperson Marni Goldberg provided The Verge with the following statement:

Read Article >

Epic Games may have largely lost its major lawsuit against Apple, but it’s not going out without a fight — and it has some major support in its corner. Soon after the Epic Games v. Apple ruling was issued, Epic appealed, and on January 27th, a large number of organizations filed amicus briefs in support of Epic’s battle, including a coalition of 35 state attorneys general, Microsoft, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

During the fight, Epic was trying to make the case that Apple has a monopoly over iOS apps, and was asking for changes that would effectively force Apple to take a smaller percentage of all the transactions that go through that store. If Epic were successful in pushing Apple to accept alternate payment processors, for instance, it could dramatically change how Apple, the most profitable company in the world, operates its highly lucrative App Store. In the original case, the judge ultimately ruled in favor of Apple in nine of ten counts Epic brought against it, but both Epic and Apple appealed the parts that they lost.

Read Article >

Epic Games has filed its opening brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the previous ruling that Apple’s control over the iOS App Store does not qualify as a monopoly. The company first gave notice of it appeal in September, but Thursday’s filing is the first time it has laid out its argument at length.

“Epic proved at trial that Apple retrains trade...by contractually requiring developers to exclusively use Apple’s App Store to distribute apps and Apple’s IAP for payments for digital content within apps,” the filing reads. “If not overturned, [the district court] decision would upend established principles of antitrust law and...undermine sound antitrust policy.”

Read Article >

An appeals court has paused one of the most consequential parts of the Epic v. Apple ruling, placing a stay on the enforcement of the injunction issued by the lower court. As a result of the stay, Apple can maintain its IAP system as the sole source of in-app payments on iOS, despite the district court’s earlier ruling that the exclusive arrangement is illegal.

The stay, issued Wednesday afternoon, does not reverse the earlier ruling but puts enforcement on hold until the appeals court can fully hear the case, a process that will likely take months.

Read Article >