Apple's request for a delay on App Store changes ruling rejected (Epic vs Apple case)

Judge rejects Apple's request for a delay in allowing alternative payments on iPhone (Epic vs Apple
The legal battle between game-maker Epic and Apple had the judge rule that Apple would need to allow developers to add an alternative payment link in their apps. The court gave Apple until December 9th to comply with the ruling, but Apple asked for a stay. Now, CNBC reports that the judge rejected the company's appeal for a stay.

Apple must allow alternative payment links to apps by December 9th


Cupertino has asked for a stay on the injunction that requested the implementation of allowing alternative payments in apps on iPhones to be pushed by a year. The reason behind the request was that, according to Apple's appeal, Cupertino needed more time to establish new guidelines in order to protect users and developers.

However, Oakland federal judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found the request for a delay of the court order to be “fundamentally flawed” and therefore rejected it, meaning the change has to be complied with in December.

The judge stated in the court order, that Apple's motion was based on a selective reading of the Court's findings. On top of that, she stated Apple has ignored all the findings which supported the injunction, mainly the supercompetitive commission rates which resulted in extraordinarily high operating margins. She added that these operating margins have not been correlated to the value of Apple's intellectual property.

Back in September when judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled on the Epic vs Apple case, she ruled in favor of Apple in nine out of ten counts. Both Epic Games and Apple filed an appeal on the court decision, and the appeal process could take more time.


Apple attorney Mark Perry stated that allowing links to outside payments on the App Store is a difficult process and that's why Apple had requested a stay on the injunction. He added that the process is complicated because there should be guidelines put in place to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers, and to protect Apple itself.

However, the judge on the case did not agree with the request. She said that Apple was asking for a delay for as long as five years and that she did not see any credible reason provided by Apple which showed the injunction would cause "the professed devastation". She said that the only thing that was a credible reason for asking for the delay was the needed time to establish guidelines, and she ruled that Apple needs to comply by December.

The injunction doesn't mean developers won't have to pay App Store fees.

Apple hasn't publicly announced how it is going to change the App Store policies and guidelines under the order. However, it has signaled it may find a way to charge some fees on off-platform purchases as well. The company had previously stated it would need more time to build new software and policies to replace the in-app payment system it currently has.

Apple is, quite understandably, not happy with the ruling. It has stated that it believes no additional business changes would be required to take effect until all appeals on the case are resolved. The company has decided it will ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay based on these circumstances.

The Ninth Circuit is a federal court of appeals that has jurisdiction over the district courts in some of the districts of the United States, including
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California where the Epic vs Apple case has received its ruling by judge Rogers.

This entire saga started back last year when Fortnite maker Epic Games decided to include an alternative payment link in its app, breaking Apple's rules. The game-maker then took the tech giant to court.
Loading Comments...
FCC OKs Cingular\'s purchase of AT&T Wireless