Legal dispute with Epic Games: Apple considers app store judgment to be too far

In the long-term process of Apple’s app store between Epic Games and Apple in the USA, there are new arguments from the iPhone Group: In the appeal procedure, Apple’s lawyers have massively criticized the decision of the lower instance. According to the filing, the judgment of judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, with which Apple is forced to admit alternative payment paths, contradicts the constitutional right of the group. In the letter to the responsible United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, Apple claims, among other things, that the lower court had taken the right to be paid for its intellectual property. That is a “dangerous precedent”. Apple sees in the fees that occur in the App Store, including a remuneration of its technical creations.

Apple questions legality

In the 42 -page letter that Apple blog 9to5mac is availableIt continues that Gonzalez Roger’s’ decision is “faulty”, “excessively wide” and ultimately “not to defend”. Apple sees in the fact that Epic Games for so-called linked-out squares, i.e. purchases via its own payment routes, should no longer receive a commission, a “permanent punishment” for Apple.

In addition, a decision by the US’s Supreme Court is cited, which dealt with the question, Whether lower dishes are valid nationwide at all may meet. Apple’s view, Gonzalez Rogers’ court must then “at least significantly restrict” his order. What that would mean exactly remains unclear.

Free expression threatened?

Furthermore, Apple’s lawyers, Gonzalez Rogers’ disposal are “in the meticulous detail” new design and formatting regulations “for the app store and even prescribe the words that Apple may transmit its own users on his own platform. These requirements represented an inadmissible expansion and amendment of the decision of the lower court – instead of an attempt to enforce compliance with the original decision.

You violate the first constitutional additiveBy squeezing Apple to send messages to his customers “with which it does not match”. The first constitutional addition concerns the right to freedom of expression that companies also enjoy in the United States.

What the decision is about

At the end of April, judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had 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. In the meantime, “Fortnite” from Epic Games in the USA is again in the App Store. Although there are in-app purchases in which Apple also deserves, Epic’s own payment system as well-which is cheaper for customers. There are similar conflicts in other countries. The EU Commission Apple prescribes exactly what the group is not allowed to and what is not allowed via the Digital Markets Act.