Apple and Epic have filed new requests over whether the court should uphold or lift a recent stay in their ongoing App Store legal battle. Here are the details.
Some recent context on this expanding case
Last Monday, April 6, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. granted Apple’s motion stay a recent bug requiring him to loosen certain App Store rules related to alternative payment methods.
Apple filed the motion on Friday, April 3, and the court granted it on Monday, April 6.
That same Monday, Epic filed a motion (two, actually. We’ll get to that) asking the court to reconsider its decision to grant Apple’s stay motion.
In its motion, Epic argued that the court’s decision was issued prematurely, since under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, it would have had 10 days to file its response opposing Apple’s request to stay the order.
Of course, this federal rule states that the court may act before this 10-day period, “but only if the court reasonably notifies the parties that it intends to act sooner.” However, according to Epic, that was not the case.
Then, on April 6, Epic filed two motions: one asking the court to reconsider its April 6 decision to grant Apple’s motion to stay, and a second motion opposing Apple’s original motion, from April 3, to stay the order.
Epic also called Apple’s motion to stay “another delaying tactic to prevent the court from placing significant and permanent limits on Apple’s ability to charge junk fees on third-party payments.”
Apple responds
Yesterday, Apple filed a response to Epic’s motion asking the court to reconsider suspending the injunction.
In it, Apple argues that there is no reason to review the suspension and disputes Epic’s claims of harm. Apple adds that Epic has not provided evidence that developers are delaying adoption of alternative payment options due to uncertainty.
Apple notes that it is not charging fees for linked purchases as it seeks Supreme Court review, and argues that maintaining the suspension preserves the current framework while avoiding potentially unnecessary proceedings in lower courts.
See Apple’s full response below:
epic answers
Earlier today, Epic responded to Apple’s response to Epic’s motion asking the court to reconsider suspending the injunction.
In its response, Epic argues that the suspension is already causing harm by creating uncertainty around fees, which in turn discourages developers from adopting alternative payment options and ultimately delays the competitive changes envisioned in the court’s original ruling.
Epic adds that Apple has not demonstrated any real need to suspend, arguing that an appeal to the Supreme Court would not eliminate the need for further proceedings in the lower court, so both processes could move forward at the same time.
See Epic’s full response below:
Do you think the court should lift or maintain the suspension? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. Further.
