Epic vs. Apple App Store changes will wait until after the appeal

Posted:
in iOS edited December 2021
Apple has succeeded in its bid to temporarily stay a court order forcing it to make changes to App Store payment guidelines following the landmark Epic vs. Apple ruling.




The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that Apple could have the time it asked for to make its argument in its appeal. Had it failed in its bid, Apple would have needed to make the changes by December 9.

"Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court's determination that Epic Games, Inc. failed to show Apple's conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct violated California's Unfair Competition Law," the judge ruled.

However, the changes required by the ruling allowing developers to contact users through information "obtained voluntarily" is unaffected by Wednesday's stay.

The stay remains in place until the appeal arguments are heard, and the ruling is made.

The ruling on Wednesday stems from the aftermath of the Epic vs Apple lawsuit, which largely went Apple's way. While it wasn't declared by court to be a monopoly, Apple was still required to make changes to its App Store developer guidelines to effectively remove Apple's anti-steering rules.

The changes basically allowed developers to inform users of other ways to make purchases within the app, instead of being forced to use the existing in-app purchases mechanism. Developers were also to be allowed to communicate with users about the changes.

After the trial, Apple filed an appeal on October 8, along with a motion to stay the enforcement of the changes, originally scheduled to go into effect on December 9. Apple argued the changes were a dangerous proposition to users, including making it harder to combat fraud, and potentially enabling user data to be collected by malicious websites.

There was also the matter of implementing changes to its platform, which Apple believed could take "months" to complete.

Apple's appeal to stay enforcement was denied on November 10 by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who also presided over the original trial. Apple's motion was deemed to be "based on a selective reading of the Court's findings and ignores all of the findings which supported the injunction."

On December 2, Apple petitioned the Court of Appeals on the matter, asking for an "administrative stay" of 30 days in a second attempt. Without a stay, Apple claimed "the App Store will have to be reconfigured - to the detriment of consumers, developers, and Apple itself."

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 34
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,343member
    So they've only got a 30 day stay to make a fuller argument?  More of a delay than a win.  Good luck to them though.
    9secondkox2
  • Reply 2 of 34
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,684member
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
  • Reply 3 of 34
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,345administrator
    crowley said:
    So they've only got a 30 day stay to make a fuller argument?  More of a delay than a win.  Good luck to them though.
    They asked for 30 days. The court gave them until after the appeal was concluded.
    magman1979williamlondonronnKTRqwerty52tenthousandthingsbshankEsquireCats
  • Reply 4 of 34
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    There’s the option that Apple does all the behind-the-scenes work to be prepared and never implements it until they have to. That way they can be ready to flip that switch if it becomes necessary.
    williamlondonradarthekat12Strangers
  • Reply 5 of 34
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    They would have to show evidence that they tried to do it by the ordered deadline but physically weren’t able to instead of just claiming that it wasn’t possible.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 34
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    There’s the option that Apple does all the behind-the-scenes work to be prepared and never implements it until they have to. That way they can be ready to flip that switch if it becomes necessary.
    Apple already has to have that switch to comply with laws in other countries.

    Well, unless they refuse to comply...
    williamlondondarkvader
  • Reply 7 of 34
    ronnronn Posts: 481member
    crowley said:
    So they've only got a 30 day stay to make a fuller argument?  More of a delay than a win.  Good luck to them though.
    They asked for 30 days. The court gave them until after the appeal was concluded.
    Yes. From the ruling:
    Therefore, we grant Apple's motion to stay part (i) of paragraph (1) of the permanent injunction. The stay will remain in effect until the mandate issues in this appeal.

    So this will stay put for several months.

    maximaramaximara
  • Reply 8 of 34
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,732member
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    You’re hoping for the latter? You’re hoping that Apple is forced to shut down the app store? Wow, what a hater. I had no idea.
    williamlondonradarthekat12StrangersbshankEsquireCatsgenovelle
  • Reply 9 of 34
    crowley said:
    So they've only got a 30 day stay to make a fuller argument?  More of a delay than a win.  Good luck to them though.
    They asked for 30 days. The court gave them until after the appeal was concluded.
    Apple asked the Ninth Circuit for a stay pending appeal (i.e. until the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate) and for an administrative stay of 30 days. Apple wanted the administrative stay to give the Ninth Circuit time to decide on the stay pending appeal. Since the Ninth Circuit made its decision on the stay pending appeal before the December 9th deadline, it didn't need to issue the 30 day administrative stay. Apple had also asked for an extension of 30 days - beyond the 30 day administrative stay it asked for - if the Ninth Circuit denied Apple's request for a stay pending appeal, to give Apple time to seek Supreme Court review.
    tenthousandthings
  • Reply 10 of 34
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,412member
    ronn said:
    crowley said:
    So they've only got a 30 day stay to make a fuller argument?  More of a delay than a win.  Good luck to them though.
    They asked for 30 days. The court gave them until after the appeal was concluded.
    Yes. From the ruling:
    Therefore, we grant Apple's motion to stay part (i) of paragraph (1) of the permanent injunction. The stay will remain in effect until the mandate issues in this appeal.

    So this will stay put for several months.

    It might take several months just for the courts to set a date to hear Apple appeal. Even then, my guess would be that that date would be set after they hear and rule on Epic appeal. That's because if Epic can win on their appeal or least get a partial win, it would affect how the court would rule on Apple appeal. 

    It seems that one of the main reason why the 9th Circuit Court granted Apple a stay on the lower court ruling is that they have serious concern about how the lower courts ruled that Apple violated CA unfair competition law and yet did not find Apple in violation any Federal anti-trust laws. 



    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-u-appeals-court-pauses-195619286.html

    >Joel Mitnick, a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and a former U.S. Federal Trade Commission trial lawyer, said the 9th Circuit's ruling gave few "tea leaves to decipher" about how the appeal will ultimately play out, but said the court is "signaling a serious concern" that the lower court found Apple violated California unfair competition laws but not federal antitrust laws.

    He said the 9th circuit cited a previous case that held that conduct that does not violate antitrust laws cannot be the basis for a finding of unfairness under competition laws.<


    So it might be closer to a year or even more, before any ruling on whether Apple has to make any changes to their Apple App Store payment system. It will most likely hinge on whether Epic can win at least a portion of their appeal.  And by then, Apple would have already found a way to track payment that uses a link in an app, so they can still collect their commission. 

    radarthekat
  • Reply 11 of 34
    crowley said:
    So they've only got a 30 day stay to make a fuller argument?  More of a delay than a win.  Good luck to them though.
    The  30 days is what Apple asked for but If I am reading the ruling right Ninth Circuit because it extended the stay "until the appeal arguments are heard, and the ruling is made."  Since that could take months Apple got more time than they asked for.
    edited December 2021 radarthekat
  • Reply 12 of 34
    thttht Posts: 4,206member
    maximara said:
    crowley said:
    So they've only got a 30 day stay to make a fuller argument?  More of a delay than a win.  Good luck to them though.
    The  30 days is what Apple asked for but If I am reading the ruling right Ninth Circuit because it extended the stay "until the appeal arguments are heard, and the ruling is made."  Since that could take months Apple got more time than they asked for.
    The 30 days was for in the case that Apple wasn't given a stay by the 9th circuit. In that case, the 30 days was for SCOTUS appeal. Since they were given a stay by the 9th circuit, they don't have to make any changes until the 9th circuit appeals process is done, which could be a while.
    radarthekattenthousandthings12Strangers
  • Reply 13 of 34
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    Did you even read the article?  It clearly stated the Ninth Circuit gave Apple "until the appeal arguments are heard, and the ruling is made" a process that could (and likely will) take months.  More over the Ninth Circuit cited an earlier ruling "that held that conduct that does not violate antitrust laws cannot be the basis for a finding of unfairness under competition laws."  That may indicate who the Ninth Circuit will rule but as anyone can tell you figuring out how an appeals court will rule is like tea leaf reading.


    radarthekattenthousandthingswilliamlondon
  • Reply 14 of 34
    lkrupp said:
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    You’re hoping for the latter? You’re hoping that Apple is forced to shut down the app store? Wow, what a hater. I had no idea.
    Wow, what a hater. - Don't come to such conclusions so quickly. This post has to be read in the context of 1000+ posts he has already made on this topic. Looks like you did not read any of them or do not remember them. Anyway, I will save you time and summarize the premise of his posts on this topic.

    1. Apple is being unfairly targeted by politicians all over the world for its success, particularly on the App store front (Sounds familiar???)
    2. Greedy politicians in power from various countries (US, UK, various EU countries, Russia, China etc) are in the process of changing the laws to make App store an unviable business
    3. It is inevitable that one of the countries WILL pass laws that would make App store an unviable business in that country
    4. He expects Apple to respond very strongly to the politicians of that country by taking down the App store in that country (preferably one of the western countries US/UK/any country within EU)
    5. Once the app store is shut down in that country, people of that country protests vehemently against the politicians in support of the victim, i.e. Apple, and bring down that government and teach a lesson to the politicians who enacted the laws against Apple
    6. Seeing the response from people in one country in support of Apple app store policies, politicians from other countries (particularly in China, Russia) quack in their boots and drop all the plans towards law changes related to Apple App store. 
    7. And politicians from all over the world do not poke Apple the bear ever in their lifetime after seeing the support from people towards Apple in one of the countries, fearing a similar response from people in their own country
    8. Apple and users of Apple iPhones live happily ever after

    PS. Points 1 to 4 are pretty close to what @22july2013 has made in various posts. Points 5 though 8 are my own words based on the understanding of @22July2013's posts. He did not make those exact statements, i just filled in the blanks :smile: . There could be slight exaggerations here and there, but please bear with that.

    Edit: In case you are wondering if he is joking or serious, he is very serious (absolutely 100%, not even 99.99%) about it. And he found few supporters in this forum who also expressed similar views in different threads.
    edited December 2021 elijahgwilliamlondon
  • Reply 15 of 34
    lkrupp said:
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    You’re hoping for the latter? You’re hoping that Apple is forced to shut down the app store? Wow, what a hater. I had no idea.
    Not so much a hater, but as the post directly above mine demonstrates quite conclusively, it's more of a cult mentality. Clinging to the belief that a spectacular doomsday will come, even though it never actually happens. So a simple ruling for a stay on appeal that is commonplace in the US legal system becomes a reason to comment that Apple could be forced to shut down the App Store in the US, not for the reasons the cult believes it will, but rather for another reason (not enough time to implement a court order).

    If Apple loses any of the appeals, it will be given time to implement the changes. They won't have to be ready the day of the ruling. That's not how this works.
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon12Strangers
  • Reply 16 of 34
    lkrupp said:
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    You’re hoping for the latter? You’re hoping that Apple is forced to shut down the app store? Wow, what a hater. I had no idea.
    Wow, what a hater. - Don't come to such conclusions so quickly. This post has to be read in the context of 1000+ posts he has already made on this topic. Looks like you did not read any of them or do not remember them. Anyway, I will save you time and summarize the premise of his posts on this topic.

    1. Apple is being unfairly targeted by politicians all over the world for its success, particularly on the App store front (Sounds familiar???)
    2. Greedy politicians in power from various countries (US, UK, various EU countries, Russia, China etc) are in the process of changing the laws to make App store an unviable business
    3. It is inevitable that one of the countries WILL pass laws that would make App store an unviable business in that country
    4. He expects Apple to respond very strongly to the politicians of that country by taking down the App store in that country (preferably one of the western countries US/UK/any country within EU)
    5. Once the app store is shut down in that country, people of that country protests vehemently against the politicians in support of the victim, i.e. Apple, and bring down that government and teach a lesson to the politicians who enacted the laws against Apple
    6. Seeing the response from people in one country in support of Apple app store policies, politicians from other countries (particularly in China, Russia) quack in their boots and drop all the plans towards law changes related to Apple App store. 
    7. And politicians from all over the world do not poke Apple the bear ever in their lifetime after seeing the support from people towards Apple in one of the countries, fearing a similar response from people in their own country
    8. Apple and users of Apple iPhones live happily ever after

    PS. Points 1 to 4 are pretty close to what @22july2013 has made in various posts. Points 5 though 8 are my own words based on the understanding of @22July2013's posts. He did not make those exact statements, i just filled in the blanks :smile: . There could be slight exaggerations here and there, but please bear with that.

    Edit: In case you are wondering if he is joking or serious, he is very serious (absolutely 100%, not even 99.99%) about it. And he found few supporters in this forum who also expressed similar views in different threads.
    What is not considered in this specific scenario is the fact that Apple essentially would hold a country ‘hostage’ by shutting down the only allowed store on one of the two available mobile ecosystems.

    Businesses relying on the app store (not just the ones selling apps, but also organizations using the regular App Store to seed enterprise software) will quickly sue Apple. Apple’s action to shut down the store will only even more so prove they are abusing their power. If the store is down, it will reveal the worst monopolistic behavior possible. The government will also sue Apple, let alone feed antitrust investigations (like the EU is working on) with prove that this situation is unacceptable. 

    It would be a very dumb move on Apple’s side, and will most likely never happen.
    crowleyelijahgwilliamlondondarkvader
  • Reply 17 of 34
    lkrupp said:
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.
    You’re hoping for the latter? You’re hoping that Apple is forced to shut down the app store? Wow, what a hater. I had no idea.
    Wow, what a hater. - Don't come to such conclusions so quickly. This post has to be read in the context of 1000+ posts he has already made on this topic. Looks like you did not read any of them or do not remember them. Anyway, I will save you time and summarize the premise of his posts on this topic.

    1. Apple is being unfairly targeted by politicians all over the world for its success, particularly on the App store front (Sounds familiar???)
    2. Greedy politicians in power from various countries (US, UK, various EU countries, Russia, China etc) are in the process of changing the laws to make App store an unviable business
    3. It is inevitable that one of the countries WILL pass laws that would make App store an unviable business in that country
    4. He expects Apple to respond very strongly to the politicians of that country by taking down the App store in that country (preferably one of the western countries US/UK/any country within EU)
    5. Once the app store is shut down in that country, people of that country protests vehemently against the politicians in support of the victim, i.e. Apple, and bring down that government and teach a lesson to the politicians who enacted the laws against Apple
    6. Seeing the response from people in one country in support of Apple app store policies, politicians from other countries (particularly in China, Russia) quack in their boots and drop all the plans towards law changes related to Apple App store. 
    7. And politicians from all over the world do not poke Apple the bear ever in their lifetime after seeing the support from people towards Apple in one of the countries, fearing a similar response from people in their own country
    8. Apple and users of Apple iPhones live happily ever after

    PS. Points 1 to 4 are pretty close to what @22july2013 has made in various posts. Points 5 though 8 are my own words based on the understanding of @22July2013's posts. He did not make those exact statements, i just filled in the blanks :smile: . There could be slight exaggerations here and there, but please bear with that.

    Edit: In case you are wondering if he is joking or serious, he is very serious (absolutely 100%, not even 99.99%) about it. And he found few supporters in this forum who also expressed similar views in different threads.
    What is not considered in this specific scenario is the fact that Apple essentially would hold a country ‘hostage’ by shutting down the only allowed store on one of the two available mobile ecosystems.

    Businesses relying on the app store (not just the ones selling apps, but also organizations using the regular App Store to seed enterprise software) will quickly sue Apple. Apple’s action to shut down the store will only even more so prove they are abusing their power. If the store is down, it will reveal the worst monopolistic behavior possible. The government will also sue Apple, let alone feed antitrust investigations (like the EU is working on) with prove that this situation is unacceptable. 

    It would be a very dumb move on Apple’s side, and will most likely never happen.
    Completely agree with you that this will NEVER happen. But @22july2013 seems to be living in a different world, so just thought of highlighting it in this thread.
    crowleyelijahgwilliamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 34
    Putting the focus on anti-steering never really made much sense. iPhone users have access to both the App Store and the internet/social media/email/text messaging etc. There's no real barrier to developer communication outside the App Store or to payments to developers outside the App Store. Hugely successful mainstream apps like Netflix, Spotify, and Amazon Kindle have already proven this to be true.
    thtbshank
  • Reply 19 of 34
    if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.

    Except Apple is lying.  It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day.  All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app.  And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.
  • Reply 20 of 34
    darkvader said:

    Except Apple is lying. 
    More unsubstantiated piffle from the "I hate Apple" crowd.
    bshank
Sign In or Register to comment.