Reached for comment, Apple said it intends to try again. “This incipient antitrust conduct is the result, in part, of the anti-steering policies which Apple has enforced to harm competition.” “In short, Apple’s motion is based on a selective reading of this Court’s findings and ignores all of the findings which supported the injunction, namely incipient antitrust conduct including super competitive commission rates resulting in extraordinarily high operating margins and which have not been correlated to the value of its intellectual property,” wrote Judge Gonzalez Rogers. Ultimately, the judge ruled today that Apple failed to successfully argue its case for a stay and denied the motion. Apple disagreed, pointing to other pro-consumer changes it has made, like the App Store privacy labels. It can’t turn around and now say that raising consumer awareness about this competitive alternative would now cause “irreparable harm.” He added, too, that Apple shouldn’t be left to sort out the changes on its own as, so far, many of the steps Apple has taken to open up the App Store were in response to either class action lawsuits or legislative and regulatory developments. He reiterated Apple’s position that allowing links inside apps could introduce security and privacy risks into the iOS ecosystem.Įpic Games’ counsel, Gary Bornstein, pointed out that Apple said during the trial that its first-party payments platform competed with web payments. It is going to happen,” said Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Mark Perry, a lead lawyer for Apple on the Epic Games case. That meant, if Apple wasn’t granted this stay on the injunction, it would have to permit developers to point to alternative means of payment inside their iOS apps.ĭuring a November 9 hearing to hear arguments both for and against the stay, Apple’s legal counsel argued that the changes Apple was being forced to implement would “upset the platform.” Per the ruling, the required App Store policy changes had an early December deadline, as the judge ordered the injunction to be implemented within 90 days of the September 10 ruling. However, upon its appeal of the Epic Games lawsuit, Apple asked for a stay on the injunction Judge Gonzalez Rogers had put into place that would open up the App Store to non-Apple payment systems. developers in a class action lawsuit over the same matter. The court also said Apple couldn’t prevent developers from communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through their account registration within the app.Īpple in October officially updated its App Store rules to address developers’ ability to communicate with their users, as that change was also a part of its settlement with a group of U.S. … including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on the Epic Games antitrust case had ordered Apple to no longer stop developers from: Specifically, the Septemruling issued by U.S. The court’s original ruling stated that Apple would no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from pointing to other means of payment besides Apple’s own payment systems, but Apple wanted that decision put on hold until its appeals case was decided - a delay that would have effectively pushed back the App Store changes by a matter of years. Though Apple largely won that lawsuit when the judge declared that Apple was not acting as a monopolist as Epic Games had alleged, the court sided with the Fortnite maker on the matter of Apple’s anti-steering policies regarding restrictions on in-app purchases. A federal judge has ruled that Apple can’t push back the deadline to update App Store policies, as previously ordered in the court’s decision on California’s Epic Games v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |