Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction

Posted:
in General Discussion
Lawyers from Apple have filed a new motion saying that the Epic Games injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would "harm customers," and it wants a stay until all appeals have been heard.

Credit: Epic Games
Credit: Epic Games


Following the original September 2021 ruling by US District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez in the Epic Games vs Apple lawsuit, Apple filed for a stay on the injunction until October. Then it applied again in late October, saying it had done some of what the court asked, but still wanted the rest put on hold.

The injunction chiefly requires Apple to cease its anti-steering developer guidelines. These prohibited developers from telling users within their apps that there were alternative ways to pay.

Apple has since removed its restriction regarding advertising these outside purchase options. Now in a new filing ahead of the injunction's December 9 start date, however, Apple is again arguing that the injunction should be stopped.

"Apple Inc. has been ordered to change its business model in a way that will harm customers, developers, and Apple itself," says the company in a filing seen by Bloomberg Law. "The injunction should be administratively stayed before it becomes effective on December 9, and remain stayed until the appeals are resolved."

"The district court erred in entering a nationwide, class-type injunction in a single-plaintiff case brought by a developer that has no apps on the App Store, proved no harm from the provisions at issue, and did not even directly challenge or seek to enjoin them," continues the filing.

"Undisputed evidence establishes that Apple will be harmed by precipitous implementation of this unlawful and inequitable injunction," says Apple. "Apple should not be required to change an integral part of its business model, which has been in place for more than a decade, until this Court decides the appeals on the merits."

As before, Apple further maintains that the injunction will not make it through the appeals process.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 17
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    You don’t exhaust your appeals until you get to the US Supreme Court where they will either accept to hear the case or not. Or they might send it back down to a lower court.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 17
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    Right. I'd love to hear more on how the "injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would harm customers". I can definitely see how it would hurt Apple's pockets, but not seeing how it would harm customers.
    williamlondonpscooter63
  • Reply 4 of 17
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals. 

    The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 17
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    Right. I'd love to hear more on how the "injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would harm customers". I can definitely see how it would hurt Apple's pockets, but not seeing how it would harm customers.
    Apple isn’t exaggerating the impact of changing the methods they use to collect their share of IAPs in mobile games. It’s not a small thing.

    They may be exaggerating its effect on customers, but I suppose that really depends on what Apple does, and how developers respond. Higher prices for Apple customers who don’t want to give their personal information to a company like Epic seems a real possibility, for example. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 17
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    You don’t exhaust your appeals until you get to the US Supreme Court where they will either accept to hear the case or not. Or they might send it back down to a lower court.
    You do know the thing Apple is appealing has a comply by date of Dec 2021, right?
    edited November 2021
  • Reply 7 of 17
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals. 

    The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so. 
    Except that is not what the title says: "Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction" ie Apple previously went to the Court of Appeals and was refused.  I again ask what am I missing?
    williamlondon
  • Reply 8 of 17
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,538member
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    Right. I'd love to hear more on how the "injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would harm customers". I can definitely see how it would hurt Apple's pockets, but not seeing how it would harm customers.
    For one,  customers would have to provide their CC info and maybe other financial data to a third party developer. Might not be a problem with well established developers like Epic or Spotify or Microsoft . But the developer selling a $2.99 app might not be as trustworthy with customers data. 

    Second, Apple must allow developers to provide a direct link for payment outside the App Store. Though Apple do a decent job of stopping malware from getting through the Apple App Store, they by no means can stop all of it. One bad link and thousands or tens of thousands of customers could be affected, before Apple finds out about it.

    Third, when Apple handle the payment for the customer, they also handle any refund, if the app doesn't performed as advertised. With a third party payment, the customer must go through the developer to get a refund.  

    Fourth, what happens to customers that buy a new iDevice or has to factory reset on the iDevice they have. How do they get their purchased app back, if they don't have a backup? With Apple iTunes payment, Apple reinstall them automatically, providing they are still available. But customers paying on developers sites would need to contact each developer they purchased an app from, to verify purchase and get it reinstalled or have to open an account with them when they made the purchase. 

    Fifth, who's going to take responsibility when a not so well established developer server gets hacked into and customers data is stolen? 

    Yes, these are problems that are not impossible for developers to solve but how do the customers know when making an impulse purchase from a developer they never dealt with or even heard of? It's one thing to allow developers to inform customers that payment can be made on their website and provide a link that opens a browser to that website. It's quite another to allow developers to provide a direct link in their app, to their own payment system.  




    williamlondonpscooter63maximaraPShimiDetnatoruraharaHedwarewatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 17
    davidw said:
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    Right. I'd love to hear more on how the "injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would harm customers". I can definitely see how it would hurt Apple's pockets, but not seeing how it would harm customers.
    For one,  customers would have to provide their CC info and maybe other financial data to a third party developer. Might not be a problem with well established developers like Epic or Spotify or Microsoft . But the developer selling a $2.99 app might not be as trustworthy with customers data. 

    Second, Apple must allow developers to provide a direct link for payment outside the App Store. Though Apple do a decent job of stopping malware from getting through the Apple App Store, they by no means can stop all of it. One bad link and thousands or tens of thousands of customers could be affected, before Apple finds out about it.

    Third, when Apple handle the payment for the customer, they also handle any refund, if the app doesn't performed as advertised. With a third party payment, the customer must go through the developer to get a refund.  

    Fourth, what happens to customers that buy a new iDevice or has to factory reset on the iDevice they have. How do they get their purchased app back, if they don't have a backup? With Apple iTunes payment, Apple reinstall them automatically, providing they are still available. But customers paying on developers sites would need to contact each developer they purchased an app from, to verify purchase and get it reinstalled or have to open an account with them when they made the purchase. 

    Fifth, who's going to take responsibility when a not so well established developer server gets hacked into and customers data is stolen? 

    Yes, these are problems that are not impossible for developers to solve but how do the customers know when making an impulse purchase from a developer they never dealt with or even heard of? It's one thing to allow developers to inform customers that payment can be made on their website and provide a link that opens a browser to that website. It's quite another to allow developers to provide a direct link in their app, to their own payment system.  
    Awesome post, thanks for outlining perfectly the problems with this issue for "we the customers" (who don't suck Sweeney c**k).
    Detnatorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 17
    maximara said:
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    You don’t exhaust your appeals until you get to the US Supreme Court where they will either accept to hear the case or not. Or they might send it back down to a lower court.
    You do know the thing Apple is appealing has a comply by date of Dec 2021, right?
    December 9th, 2021 to be exact, and asking for appeals can push that back, during the appeal process.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 17
    maximara said:
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals. 

    The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so. 
    Except that is not what the title says: "Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction" ie Apple previously went to the Court of Appeals and was refused.  I again ask what am I missing?
    You are missing the name of the COURT/judge that Apple asked asked for the stay from.  It's now a court level higher (circuit).
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 17
    maximara said:
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals. 

    The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so. 
    Except that is not what the title says: "Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction" ie Apple previously went to the Court of Appeals and was refused.  I again ask what am I missing?
    The “again” in the headline may be correct, in that this could be a second step in the process with the circuit court of appeals, but even if so, then it is still not a reference to the proceeding you were referring to, which was Apple’s first request (in October) for a stay from the original judge in the district court, which was heard November 9 and denied. 
    edited November 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 17
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,538member
    maximara said:
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals. 

    The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so. 
    Except that is not what the title says: "Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction" ie Apple previously went to the Court of Appeals and was refused.  I again ask what am I missing?
    The “again” in the headline may be correct, in that this could be a second step in the process with the circuit court of appeals, but even if so, then it is still not a reference to the proceeding you were referring to, which was Apple’s first request (in October) for a stay from the original judge in the district court, which was heard November 9 and denied. 
    Or maybe Apple first requested a stay from the Court of Appeals and they recommended that Apple first see if the original Judge would allow them to delay implementation of some or all of the ordered Apple App Store changes, in the ruling under appeal. And when the original Judge refused, Apple "again" ask the Court of Appeals to make a ruling on the matter.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 17
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,093member
    maximara said:
    maximara said:
    I thought this had already been decided and not granted.  What am I missing?
    The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals. 

    The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so. 
    Except that is not what the title says: "Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction" ie Apple previously went to the Court of Appeals and was refused.  I again ask what am I missing?
    You’re not missing anything. It’s a poorly written article by someone who doesn’t understand how the law works. 

    There is no new appeal or new new request for an injunction. Apple appealed the original judgement last month. Appealing a court’s judgement doesn’t prevent the judgement from taking effect so Apple asked the judge to issue a stay while the appeal played out. She denied that.  

    It now appears that Apple has appealed the district court’s denial of is request for a stay pending the outcome of the appeal. 

    If the court of appeals denies the appeal of the judge’s order or denial of the stay, Apple could then appeal to the US Supreme Court, though it is unlikely the Supreme Court would hear an appeal on the stay, but likely it would hear the appeal on the ruling itself. 

    Stays are discretionary and require a showing of irreparable harm so I don’t see Apple winning that appeal, but stranger things have happened. 
    uraharawatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 17
    Apple needs to change course and allow 3rd party App Stores and sideloading (which should require a certificate).
    This will bring new customers to the platform and in the end it will benefit Apple.
    The App Store has done nearly nothing regarding security (Pegasus and other zero day exploits), so it's time to move forward.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 16 of 17
    "The district court erred in entering a nationwide, class-type injunction in a single-plaintiff case brought by a developer that has no apps on the App Store, proved no harm from the provisions at issue, and did not even directly challenge or seek to enjoin them," continues the filing.

    Sounds pretty compelling. Looks like judicial overreach. I hope Apple gets the stay during the appeals process. I'd rather them spend time and resources on improving their products than implementing this unnecessary change.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 17
    davidw said:

    A For one,  customers would have to provide their CC info and maybe other financial data to a third party developer. Might not be a problem with well established developers like Epic or Spotify or Microsoft . But the developer selling a $2.99 app might not be as trustworthy with customers data. 

    Second, Apple must allow developers to provide a direct link for payment outside the App Store. Though Apple do a decent job of stopping malware from getting through the Apple App Store, they by no means can stop all of it. One bad link and thousands or tens of thousands of customers could be affected, before Apple finds out about it.

    Third, when Apple handle the payment for the customer, they also handle any refund, if the app doesn't performed as advertised. With a third party payment, the customer must go through the developer to get a refund.  

    Fourth, what happens to customers that buy a new iDevice or has to factory reset on the iDevice they have. How do they get their purchased app back, if they don't have a backup? With Apple iTunes payment, Apple reinstall them automatically, providing they are still available. But customers paying on developers sites would need to contact each developer they purchased an app from, to verify purchase and get it reinstalled or have to open an account with them when they made the purchase. 

    Fifth, who's going to take responsibility when a not so well established developer server gets hacked into and customers data is stolen? 

    Yes, these are problems that are not impossible for developers to solve but how do the customers know when making an impulse purchase from a developer they never dealt with or even heard of? It's one thing to allow developers to inform customers that payment can be made on their website and provide a link that opens a browser to that website. It's quite another to allow developers to provide a direct link in their app, to their own payment system.  




    Point 1, almost no developer handles credit card data, they resort to PCI compliant acquiring providers just like Apple. Providers like Adyen, EvoPayment, Ingenico, WorldPay, PayPal, etc. At no point do small and medium developer ever see or save you credit card data.

    Point 2 is correct but the security Apple provides regarding external links isn’t specific of the Appstore. We can’t call it security when the Appstore doesn’t allow external links. That would be like saying: the best way not to lose your wallet is by not having one.

    Point 3, this is utter BS. Apple has no idea if a service was delivered before they issue a refund.
    Gaming companies are forced to suspend hundreds of accounts per month, because Apple decided to issue refunds to users who received and spent their products.
    On the other hand, Apple doesn’t allow us to refund costumers when there was in fact a problem because they decide on the refunds.
    Finally, when Apple refuses a refund and tells the customer to contact the developer, they know the developer can’t see the payments, because Apple doesn’t provide developers with a way to map your invoice with a specific payment. So developers are forced to send the users back to Apple, who will still try to send them back to the developer.

    Point 4, if you have a game account, that account is saved on the game company side with all your purchases. Your account will have an email saved or an account ID with which you can recover it.
    Not every company uses game connect, so when buying a new iPhone, Apple can’t always recover your game account.

    Point 5, The game developer is responsible, but what data? A game studio has probably your Email and your login IP, nothing else.
    Apple is responsible for the data they hold, but for payment processing they work with PayPal, Boku, Adyen, etc and those providers hold your financial data. They are also the companies who would hold the data and process the payments for the game developers.

    Your assumptions are from a perspective that Apple does everything on their own and they are amazing at it.
    The only reason they have the AppStore environment closed is too keep game developers in the dark, of what is happening and be able to charge 30% for a service no developer wants. Developers simply want users of Apple devices to access their products.

    Apple does this because they see everyone in the Appstore user as their customer, even when buying in our games, they are Apple customers. Even after a gaming company spent millions in Marketing pulling users to our games, those users are seen by Apple as their users.

    What are the disadvantages for the people buying through those links?
    - The payment process will be a bit longer due to the redirection to external pages.
    - You may have to insert your credit card data in every purchase because few game developers work with card on file.
    - There are bad actors who can use fraud links but it’s still up to Apple to test those links in the review process.

    What are the advantages for the customers?
    - Lower prices.
    Medium companies who pay higher payment processing fees will be able to reduce their prices by 10% to 15%. 
    Larger companies with robust payment systems may pass 15% to 20% discounts to the customers without any impact on their revenue.
    Small studios will still use Apple, because they don’t have the resources to build and manage their own shops.
    - More payment methods. Apple decides how you pay and in the future you may want to use your credit card directly or through PayPal, or pay through your bank account or use your phone, a giftcard, etc, etc.
    - Developers will be able to refund payments and provide you with better support because they can see your payments.
    - Developer will be able to decide what something costs in each country and which currency to offer. Something which is now controlled by Apple.

    Did you know Apple just last week stopped all sales in Turkey due to crash of the local currency, increased their prices and reactivated it? What did they do in the Appstore? Nothing! All developers are being forced to sell their product 50% cheaper because Apple will get their 30%, for doing nothing, anyway.
    How would you feel playing a competitive game knowing your adversary pays half of what you pay?

    Have you noticed that when Apple reduce the fee from 30% to 15% for small developers, they didn’t pass part of their savings to the customers? You know why? Because Apple doesn’t allow it since they control the pricepoints and the conversion to every currency.

    This appeal isn’t to protect Apple users, it’s to protect their 30% cut over the work of developers. 
    They can’t justify these 30% when their competitors charge half and less.

    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguy
Sign In or Register to comment.