Apple and Epic have filed new requests over whether the court should keep or lift a recent stay in their ongoing App Store legal battle. Here are the details.
Some recent context on this sprawling case
Last Monday, April 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Apple’s motion to stay a recent ruling requiring it to loosen certain App Store rules related to alternative payment methods.
Apple filed the motion on Friday, April 3, and the court granted it on Monday, April 6.
On that same Monday, Epic filed a motion (two, actually. We’ll get to that) asking the court to reconsider its decision to grant Apple’s motion for stay.
In its motion, Epic argued that the court’s decision was issued prematurely, as under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, it would have had 10 days to file its response opposing Apple’s request to stay the mandate.
Granted, this federal rule states that the court may act before this 10-day period, “but only if the court gives reasonable notice to the parties that it intends to act sooner.” However, according to Epic, that wasn’t the case.
So, on April 6, Epic filed two motions: one asking the court to reconsider its April 6 decision to grant Apple’s motion for stay, and a second motion opposing Apple’s original motion, from April 3, to stay the order.
Epic also called Apple’s motion to stay “another delay tactic to prevent the court from establishing significant and permanent bounds on Apple’s ability to charge junk fees on third-party payments.”
Apple responds
Yesterday, Apple filed a response to Epic’s motion asking the court to reconsider staying the mandate.
In it, Apple argues that there’s no reason to revisit the stay, and disputes Epic’s claims of harm. Apple adds that Epic has not provided evidence that developers are delaying adoption of alternative payment options due to uncertainty.
Apple notes that it is not charging commissions on linked out purchases while it seeks Supreme Court review, and argues that maintaining the stay preserves the current framework while avoiding potentially unnecessary lower court proceedings.
See Apple’s full response below:
Epic replies
Earlier today, Epic replied to Apple’s response to Epic’s motion asking the court to reconsider staying the mandate.
In its reply, Epic argues that the stay is already causing harm by creating uncertainty around commissions, which in turn is discouraging developers from adopting alternative payment options, ultimately delaying the competitive changes intended by the court’s original ruling.
Epic adds that Apple hasn’t shown any real need for the stay, arguing that a Supreme Court appeal wouldn’t eliminate the need for further proceedings in the lower court, so both processes could move forward at the same time.
See Epic’s full reply below:
Do you think the court should lift or keep the stay? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
