Epic Games just convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn an earlier decision that temporarily stayed enforcement of a ruling that required Apple to relax certain App Store rules while it sought review from the Supreme Court. Here are the details.
Continuing where we left off
Earlier this month, the U.S. 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.
Following the court’s decision, Epic presented two motions. The former claimed that Epic did not have the appropriate amount of time to prepare a rejection of Apple’s suspension request, while the latter asked the court to reject Apple’s original suspension request.
At the time, Epic said Apple’s motion to stay was “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.”
This led Apple to submit a responsearguing that there was no reason to review the suspension and that keeping it in place would avoid unnecessary proceedings in lower courts while it seeks Supreme Court review.
Epic, in turn, submitted a response saying that Apple had not demonstrated any real need for the stay, and adding that an appeal to the Supreme Court would not eliminate the need for further proceedings in the lower court so that both processes could move forward at the same time.
Which brings us to today.
The court revokes the suspension
Tonight, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Epic’s motion for reconsideration, reversing its previous decision to suspend the mandate.
In its decision, the court says it was persuaded by Epic’s arguments that Apple has not shown that the Supreme Court is likely to take up the case or overturn the ruling, as well as by Epic’s argument that “Apple has not shown good cause to uphold our prior suspension order.”
From the decision:
Apple has not demonstrated that any pretrial detention proceedings will cause it irreparable harm if our decision is not stayed. Instead, Apple maintains that pretrial detention proceedings on the commission issue would be “premature.” Even if the Supreme Court agrees with Apple’s arguments, there would still be more proceedings on remand, particularly on the commission question, and those proceedings are likely to be similar, if not the same, regardless of certiorari.
Accordingly, we conclude that Apple has not complied with the requirements set forth in Federal Appellate Procedure Rule 41(d).
The document explains that “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d) requires that a party seeking to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari ‘must show that the petition would present a substantial issue and that good cause exists for a stay.’”
You can read the full document below:
Following the decision, Epic Games led to to claim that “Apple charges junk fees on purchases made outside the app store harms consumers and developers and violates the law.” Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney added:
We’ve reached out to Apple for comment and will update this post if we hear back.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. Further.
