The long - running legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games finally reach a verdict two yr ago . But the battle , which commence when Epic bypassed Apple ’s 30 percent cut for in - app purchase and Apple responded by booting Fortnite out of the App Store , is far from over . And now it ’s lead to the highest court of justice in the land .
Given that Apple hailed Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ’ 2021 ruling as “ a immense win , ” it was no surprise when Epic file an appeal . Less predictably , Apple appealed too . In afiling this hebdomad , Apple attorneys contend that the court overreached in issuing a broad nationwide injunction utilise to all developer , rather than just Epic . peradventure it was n’t such a huge win after all .
While the judge dominate in Apple ’s favor on nine counts , the Cupertino ship’s company was unhappy about the 10th : this one cash in one’s chips in Epic ’s favour , with the resolution that Apple was “ permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata push button , external links , or other calls to legal action that verbatim customer to purchasing mechanisms . ” This means iOS app developer can link to their own payment systems , and Apple has to put up with it . In other words , Epic gets its own way on the effect at the very heart of the original dispute .
Both Apple and Epic appealed ( different parts of ) the ruling to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals , butwere unsuccessful . The companies then appealed against the appeal court ’s upholding of the opinion andwere stillborn again . So now Apple is taking its guinea pig all the manner to the Supreme Court .
“ The district courtyard issued a wholesale enjoinment prohibiting Apple from enforcing its anti - steering rules against all developer of iOS apps offer for statistical distribution in the United States , even though the lonesome named complainant ( Epic Games , Inc. ) did not look for or hold class certification , and did not leaven that an enjoining take to the woods in favour of non - parties was necessary to make it whole , ” the filing reads .
“ The panel ’s decision affirm the enjoinment departs from Supreme Court and Circuit precedent hold that an cease and desist order can not be any blanket than necessary to make the complainant whole , and that easing can not otherwise extend beyond the named plaintiff without class certificate . ”
slimly less convincingly , the filing argues that “ there would be no prejudice to Epic from a stay : Epic is not an iOS app developer and does not stick out to benefit from the injunction . ” Epic is not an iOS app developer because Appleterminated its account .
Apple has beenrumored to be opening iOS 17to third - political party app stores and sideloading in the European Union following the Digital Markets Act ’s strict term regarding third - party app stock and payments . However , Apple has not yet announced any such changes in the operating system of rules , which set up this spill .
