Court rejects Apple emergency claim against Epic victory in the United States

Apple’s attempts to stop a court decision in the United States that gives developers in the app store the right to earn money outside the infrastructure of the iPhone Group without a commission without provision. The so-called anti-steering measures must be retained as long as the procedure is still running. Apple’s emergency commitment (Emergency Motion) was rejected by the responsible US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday.

“Fortnite”, Spotify and other apps now earn via web

At the end of April, judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided that Apple could not ban Epic Games and other app providers to put links on the web, in order to then offer in-app purchases themselves. The group also wanted to have up to 27 percent commission for this. Instead, Apple has to release the links and is also allowed to send it ahead. This has led to Spotify and Epic Games submitting their apps themselves with corresponding payment links. At Spotify, this immediately worked, with “Fortnite” of Epic Games after another – quite inappropriate – request from the court.

Apple made an appeal against the decision and wanted the Court of Appeal that the decision by Gonzalez Rogers was initially suspended because the group threatens to have a high loss of income. But the judges did not see that as necessary. In order for the arrangement to be exposed to the end of the procedure, Apple should have proven that the appeal is likely to be successful – and the company takes irreparable damage through the decision. According to the relevant factors, the Court of Appeal did not see it that way.

Apple sees billions of bills, the court does not follow

Among other things, Apple claims that the decision can cost the company “several hundred million to billion US dollars every year”. It therefore represents a “non-resuming damage” (Epic Games vs. Apple, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, file number 25-2935). The orders are also illegal: Apple cannot be banned to estimate a commission for linked purchases on the web – such a requirement is not part of the original injunctive relief. Furthermore, the group saw its rights to freedom of expression violated.

“Expressions of competing developers” would now have to be spread, i.e. left with any text in the submitted iPhone apps. The violation of the first constitutional addition of the United States. Apple must tolerate, for example, that app providers write “derogatory statements” for long prescribed in-app purchase interface in their apps about Apple. The process now continues to go, while Apple has to tolerate the link option.