Apple files fresh appeal to stop court order demanding external payment systems in iOS apps
- Reference: 1638406757
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/12/02/apple_epic_appeal/
- Source link:
The iGiant is still embroiled in a legal battle with games maker Epic in an ongoing case at the Northern District Court of California. Although Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple wasn’t a monopoly, she agreed its in-app purchasing fee, which allows the company to take up to a 30 per cent cut in sales, was anticompetitive.
App developers, like Epic, believe these fees can be avoided if only they could offer customers alternative payment options. Rogers thus ordered an [1]injunction giving Apple 90 days to allow developers to add links or buttons in their apps directing users to third-party purchasing systems. Apple tried to ask for an extension whilst it cobbled together an appeal, but Rogers denied the motion. Now, Apple has taken its request up with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
[2]
“Given the injunction’s effective date of December 9, Apple seeks immediate entry of an administrative stay that would expire 30 days after the Court’s ruling on the stay motion,” according to court documents [3][PDF] filed this week. “In the absence of a stay, by contrast, the App Store will have to be reconfigured—to the detriment of consumers, developers, and Apple itself.”
[4]
[5]
Trystan Kosmynka, Apple’s Senior Director of App Review, previously claimed opening up the App Store to external payments systems would lead to customers having “lower user confidence in...digital content purchases,” and it’d mean they were “less inclined to make purchases.”
Even if Apple were forced to abide by the initial injunction, it doesn’t necessarily mean developers can avoid paying in-app fees. The company could simply change its App Store guidelines to get a cut of purchases even if they’re processed by external payment systems.
[6]
“If the injunction were to go into effect, Apple could charge a commission on purchases made through such mechanisms...Apple would have to create a system and process for doing so; but because Apple could not recoup those expenditures (of time and resources) from Epic even after prevailing on appeal, the injunction would impose irreparable injury,” it warned in its appeal.
[7]Qualcomm takes a swipe at Apple's build-not-buy culture (because it wants to sell stuff to Apple)
[8]Apple's Pegasus lawsuit a 'declaration of war' against offensive software developers, says Kaspersky director
[9]Apple, Amazon fined to the tune of €200m for colluding over Beats headphones sales
[10]Korea gives Google and Apple another kick for requiring their own payment systems
Time is ticking, and Apple asked judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to respond by 8 December – a day before the injunction is due to come into effect.
The Register has asked Apple and the Coalition of App Fairness, a non-profit org backed by Epic fighting against in-app payments, for more comment. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/11/apple_epic_payments/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YahTAnTfxGeDROO8@9rOOgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/12/01/apple_epic_appeal_ninth_court.pdf
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YahTAnTfxGeDROO8@9rOOgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YahTAnTfxGeDROO8@9rOOgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YahTAnTfxGeDROO8@9rOOgAAAI0&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/01/qualcomm_subtly_goes_gangsta_on/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/24/apples_pegasus_lawsuit/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/24/apple_amazon_italy/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/18/south_korea_app_store_fines/
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Sure you do. You can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, which may decide to not actually hear the case. I think there's like 4 or 5 layers of courts below that.
The original case was heard in district court. You can appeal to the appeals court, which will hear your appeal with a subset of the full panel of judges (usually 3) That can be appealed to the full panel of judges, and finally can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
There is no requirement that a court be willing to hear your appeal, and while if the appeals court refused to hear your case you can appeal that refusal to the full appeals court and finally the Supreme Court, that's rarely successful. Since Apple is trying to obtain a stay, a "refusal to hear" is the same thing as a denial. As is taking a long time to get an answer, since the clock is ticking on the 90 days.
Typically a court will only grant a stay if they believe there's enough merit to the case to warrant a hearing over the issues, and that not granting the stay would be harmful in some way (i.e. cost money, reputation, etc.) So if they refuse to grant a stay, that would be the court saying "we don't think you can win". If they do grant a stay, that doesn't mean Apple will win, just that the judges think they have enough of a case to deserve a hearing.
"But... but... but... that's our CASH COW!!! How ELSE are we supposed to bilk our lusers?"
The company could simply change its App Store guidelines to get a cut of purchases even if they’re processed by external payment systems.
Obviously Apple couldn't actually prove each transaction. But Apple could technically observe when a new game has downloaded and debit the game company according to what prices are observed on the game companies web site. Said debit being claimed for continued hosting.
What stops Apple from updating their terms to make sure that every in-app purchase is reported back to Apple. They can they bill the developer 30% commission for hosting and app vetting on a monthly basis. Failure to pay, suspends the app from the store and on all phones.
There is your "non anti competitive" payment solution, who will also charge you a few percent. The developer got what they wanted but now they have even less revenue.
As I understand it, you don't have a "automatic" right to appeal a court's ruling. Yet I keep hearing about all these court cases where each side appeals repeatedly. I'm confused on how the US court system works. As an American, that isn't good news.