Apple earlier fought back against its years-long court battle with Epic Games, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the authority of federal agencies.New ruling, attempting to overturn the previous court order requiring the App Store to open external links to the App, arguing that the original judge exceeded his authority and the order should be revoked.
As the legal battle continues, Apple tries to reverse the situation
According to a report from Apple InsiderApple is currently trying to cope with the impact of the Fortnite case judgment that began in 2021 with Epic Games, which required Apple to allow App Store apps to lead to external payment links and cancel the 27% profit sharing levied on related payment behaviors. Although Apple did not appeal the main judgment at the time, it has always been dissatisfied with this supplementary ban "for all developers", and this time it decided to challenge it from a new angle.
In a new lawsuit filed earlier with the court, Apple argued that the legal dispute was originally limited to a contractual dispute between Epic Games and Apple, but the injunction issued by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California in her ruling expanded its scope of application to all US developers, exceeding the scope of appropriate jurisdiction and discretion.
Citing the latest Supreme Court ruling to seek a legal breakthrough
Apple's appeal strategy this time revolves around the U.S. Supreme Court's recent reinterpretation of the authority of administrative agencies and federal agencies, which means that courts must be subject to stricter scrutiny and legal authorization when exercising their powers. Apple cited this precedent and argued that the district court's permanent order against "all developers" was an "unauthorized" act of overstepping its authority.
Specifically, Apple requested to overturn the "civil contempt order" part of the 2021 judgment, which required Apple to modify its policies in the App Store to allow developers to direct users to third-party websites to complete payment in the form of buttons or external links.
Although Apple has made adjustments to this ban, it still reserves the right to charge a 27% "handling fee" for external payments. At the same time, it has set many restrictions on "how to design interfaces that lead to external links", which has caused many developers to criticize it as "obstruction in disguise."
The legal community is divided on this issue. Can Apple successfully overturn the verdict?
AndReuters NewsAccording to several legal experts, the legal basis for Apple's claim is not optimistic. Analysts pointed out that even though the Supreme Court has recently tightened the authority of federal agencies, local courts still have a certain degree of room for adjudication in commercial behavior and antitrust cases.
Some lawyers even said that Apple did not appeal the main judgment in the lawsuit against Epic Games, but now it has proposed to overturn one of the ancillary injunctions. It may be regarded as a strategic operation by the court and it is difficult to gain sympathy. In addition, the court ruling order itself is a corrective measure for violating the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and does not completely fall into the scope of the contract. Even if Apple claims that this order should not apply to non-party developers, it still has a legal basis because this order is an adjustment to the operating mode of the Apple platform itself.
If the appeal is successful, will the App Store be locked again?
If Apple succeeds in this appeal, the mandatory order issued by the local court to open external links will be revoked. In the future, except for Epic Games, other third-party developers may no longer be able to set up payment options leading to external links in iOS apps by legal means, which means that Apple can still maintain its high control over platform payments.
This will not only affect the application service strategies of Spotify and Netflix, which have adopted external payment-oriented strategies, but may also trigger a strong backlash from the developer community. After all, Apple's high commission and payment restrictions have been the source of long-standing dissatisfaction. If the court's ruling is reversed again, it may once again ignite the debate over platform monopoly and market fairness.
Next steps in the legal battle
Currently, the case is still in the appeal review stage, and it is expected that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to accept Apple's new arguments in the coming weeks. Once the court chooses to open a trial, the outcome of this already settled lawsuit will once again become the focus of attention of global developers and the technology industry.
