carnegie
About
- Username
- carnegie
- Joined
- Visits
- 213
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,613
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,085
Reactions
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
Just to be clear, and as I indicated earlier, the injunction applies nationwide. Apple doesn't have the option of only applying it in California.chasm said:
You’re not wrong, but Apple will likely apply it worldwide (outside of Europe, which has its own rules now). Apple has zero interest in creating different versions of the App Store on a state-by-state basis, and even if they could do so it would tempt other states to create similar regulations that would be harder to customize.foregoneconclusion said:
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.godofbiscuitssf said:So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
For those who still have doubts on this front, from Judge Rogers' Rule 52 Order (citations and footnotes omitted):Apple argues that any equitable relief issued “under state law,” presumably including under the UCL, must be “limited to California” to avoid a violation of the Commerce Clause. The only authority that Apple cites to support this proposition is Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989), which holds that “[t]he Commerce Clause precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State’s borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within the State.”
In Healy, an association of brewers and importers of beer sought declaratory judgment that a Connecticut statute was unconstitutional because it regulated out-of-state conduct in violation of the Commerce Clause. The statute in question required out-of-state shippers of beer to affirm that their prices for beer sold to Connecticut wholesalers were no higher than prices at which those products were sold in bordering states. The Supreme Court held that the Connecticut statute violated the Commerce Clause because the interaction of the Connecticut statute with beer-pricing statutes of bordering states had the “practical effect” of controlling prices “wholly outside” of Connecticut’s borders.
Healy is inapposite. Here, in contrast to Healy, there is no challenge to the constitutionality of the UCL. Rather than seeking to invalidate the UCL on the basis that it violates the Commerce Clause, Apple seeks to restrict the geographic scope of any injunction issued under the UCL to California based on the Commerce Clause. The proper scope of an injunction issued under state law is not an issue that was addressed in Healy. Further, even if Healy had any relevance to that issue, Healy’s holding that a state statute cannot be applied “to commerce that takes place wholly outside” of that state would nevertheless be inapposite. Here, neither the conduct at issue, nor its effects, are taking place “wholly outside” of California. Apple is headquartered in California; the DPLA is governed by California law; and the commerce affected by the conduct that the Court has found to be unfair takes place at least in part in California. Accordingly, Apple has not shown that Healy prevents the Court from enjoining conduct outside of California that undisputedly harms California and its residents.
By the same token, Epic Games provides the Court with no authority that an injunction could issue globally based upon a violation of California’s UCL.
Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting developers to include in their:
Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP.
Nor may Apple prohibit developers from:
Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
I get where you're coming from, and Apple made various unsuccesful arguments about the broad scope of the injunction. Regardless, this injunction applies nationwide - e.g., to apps downloaded outside of California and sales made outside of California and with regard to developers that operate outside of California.foregoneconclusion said:
That doesn't make any sense. You don't extrapolate state laws to cover the entire country. You can say CA has the right to enforce the law because there isn't a federal law regarding anti-steering that takes precedence.carnegie said:foregoneconclusion said:
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.godofbiscuitssf said:So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies applies nationwide even though it's based on violation of California law.foregoneconclusion said:
"The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems."flydog said:
What? No. Wrong!foregoneconclusion said:
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.godofbiscuitssf said:So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/supreme-court-rejects-apples-request-for-epic-app-store-review#
So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals.
Sometimes remedies for state law violations end up effectively applying nationwide. One important question is, does the court in question have proper jurisdiction over the defendant on which it is imposing a remedy? In this case there's no doubt that it does. And as for Epic, the courts have essentially accepted its argument that it can be harmed even by other developers not being able to steer their users to other payment options because those other developers might steer their users to Epic's own store to make payments relating to their iOS apps. So even though other developers aren't parties to this action (and it isn't a class action), the imposed remedy applies to them as well.
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
That (i.e. developers keeping 100% of income) doesn't seem likely, at least not in most circumstances where they weren't already able to keep 100% of income.tech_traveller said:Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.
Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.
This injunction doesn't abrogate Apple's right to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP. Developers will still have to use the App Store to distribute their apps and still be bound by the terms of Apple's developer agreements, minus the specific terms which Apple can no longer enforce. Unless Apple decides otherwise, they'll still be required to pay a commission on certain kinds of digital sales - whether Apple processes the payments or not.
Apple might decide to change some of its (still legal) terms or lower its commissions under certain circumstances, but it doesn't seem likely to me that it will reward those developers who decide to direct users to other payment options by completely doing away with the commission requirements that currently apply to certain kinds of digital sales.
Some developers may find ways to cheat and not pay all the commission which they owe, but in doing so they would be risking Apple figuring that out and terminating their developer accounts for breach of contract.
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
foregoneconclusion said:
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.godofbiscuitssf said:So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
The injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies applies nationwide even though it's based on violation of California law.foregoneconclusion said:
"The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems."flydog said:
What? No. Wrong!foregoneconclusion said:
The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only.godofbiscuitssf said:So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/supreme-court-rejects-apples-request-for-epic-app-store-review#
So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals.
-
Epic vs Apple suit finally ends, as Supreme Court refuses to hear both appeals
More or less, that's correct. Developers can include links (and information) in their apps that direct users to other payment options.godofbiscuitssf said:So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?
Also, Apple still doesn't have to reinstate Epic's developer account so Epic may remain unable to distribute its Fortnite app on iOS.
Further, Apple can still require the payment of licensing fees for the use of its IP even though payments go through other parties. Depending on how Apple decides to handle that, it could make for a messy situation.
