Epic's App Store lawsuit appeal badly flawed & 'Fortnite' ruling should stand, says Apple
In a new brief, Apple declares that Epic Games lost the Epic v. Apple trial because it failed to prove wrongdoing -- and not because of any legal errors on the judge's part.
Epic Games marketing
On Thursday, the Cupertino tech giant filed a Principal and Response Brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the appeals and cross-appeals in the Epic Games v. Apple case.
Essentially, it argues why the majority of the rulings in the case should be affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. However, it does outline an argument for reversing the ruling on its "anti-steering" provisions.
Among its arguments, the brief outlines why Apple believes that Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not make any legal errors in her decision to essentially hand Apple a win in the case.
"Epic did not lose the trial due to any legal error," the brief reads. "Epic lost because it 'overreached' by asserting claims on the 'frontier edges of antitrust law.'"
That directly counters Epic Games' argument in its appeal to the ruling that Judge Gonzalez Rogers "erred" in her judgment.
The document, which measures around 135 pages, details Epic's arguments and why the games studio lost nine of the ten counts. It draws a comparison to Apple's own cross-appeal, which it claims was based on two legal errors surrounding the California Unfair Competition Law.
On the "anti-steering" provisions, Apple says that the "measure evidence adduced by Epic is legally insufficient to support the UCL judgement." Additionally, Apple says that Epic Games can no longer prove injury on the App Store because it's no longer an Apple developer.
The Epic Games v. Apple saga kicked off in the summer of 2020, when Epic Games implemented a direct payment feature in the iOS version of "Fortnite" in violation of Apple's App Store policies. Apple subsequently removed the game, and Epic Games filed a lawsuit.
A lengthy court proceeding occurred in May 2021, during which both Apple and Epic Games laid out their arguments. Epic Games alleged that Apple enjoyed a monopoly on its App Store with little room for competitors. At the same time, Apple claimed the games studio only wanted to maximize its income -- and that its proposed changes would threaten iPhone security and privacy.
In September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers gave her ruling. She essentially handed Apple a win, declaring that the company was not a monopoly. However, part of the ruling would force changes to Apple's "anti-steering" policies -- or the rules that prohibit developers from directly communicating with customers about alternate payment options.
Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed the court ruling. Apple successfully won a bid to obtain a stay on the "anti-steering" injunction in December 2021.
Read on AppleInsider
Epic Games marketing
On Thursday, the Cupertino tech giant filed a Principal and Response Brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the appeals and cross-appeals in the Epic Games v. Apple case.
Essentially, it argues why the majority of the rulings in the case should be affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. However, it does outline an argument for reversing the ruling on its "anti-steering" provisions.
Among its arguments, the brief outlines why Apple believes that Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not make any legal errors in her decision to essentially hand Apple a win in the case.
"Epic did not lose the trial due to any legal error," the brief reads. "Epic lost because it 'overreached' by asserting claims on the 'frontier edges of antitrust law.'"
That directly counters Epic Games' argument in its appeal to the ruling that Judge Gonzalez Rogers "erred" in her judgment.
The document, which measures around 135 pages, details Epic's arguments and why the games studio lost nine of the ten counts. It draws a comparison to Apple's own cross-appeal, which it claims was based on two legal errors surrounding the California Unfair Competition Law.
On the "anti-steering" provisions, Apple says that the "measure evidence adduced by Epic is legally insufficient to support the UCL judgement." Additionally, Apple says that Epic Games can no longer prove injury on the App Store because it's no longer an Apple developer.
The Epic Games v. Apple saga kicked off in the summer of 2020, when Epic Games implemented a direct payment feature in the iOS version of "Fortnite" in violation of Apple's App Store policies. Apple subsequently removed the game, and Epic Games filed a lawsuit.
A lengthy court proceeding occurred in May 2021, during which both Apple and Epic Games laid out their arguments. Epic Games alleged that Apple enjoyed a monopoly on its App Store with little room for competitors. At the same time, Apple claimed the games studio only wanted to maximize its income -- and that its proposed changes would threaten iPhone security and privacy.
In September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers gave her ruling. She essentially handed Apple a win, declaring that the company was not a monopoly. However, part of the ruling would force changes to Apple's "anti-steering" policies -- or the rules that prohibit developers from directly communicating with customers about alternate payment options.
Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed the court ruling. Apple successfully won a bid to obtain a stay on the "anti-steering" injunction in December 2021.
Epic v. Apple - 9CA Opening Brief by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "https://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();Read on AppleInsider
Comments
I’m gonna sue Microsoft for not allowing me to sell my yard sale items fee-free on Xbox Marketplace.
Tim Weeney:
”But Microsoft doesn’t count….yet.”
I would know I could trust Epic, but Apple won't let me use an actual stable product unless they get a cut of the action and approve of the product. I hate that Apple doesn't make me feel like people own their products, the ones they paid for, because they make up limitations blaming the dim witted.
Maybe you're okay with script kiddies publishing apps that mine your data for months before Google finally does something about it but that's on you.
I prefer apple's walled garden approach. I don't have to run a vpn client on my phone or pay for an antivirus system because of their strict security.
Epic can go suck rocks. They were already making tons of money and they just want more. Their greed is on full display and if you support their greedy actions, I guess you'd be okay with someone stealing your car since "hey, they're just trying to get what they feel they deserve" right?
Boo on you sir.
Yep, you paid for your iPhone -- the hardware -- and you own that. You paid nothing for your LICENSE to use THEIR OS on THEIR terms on your phone.
You might find this helpful.