The U.S. government and several other groups filed papers with the Supreme Court in Apple v. Epic Games, urging the judge to at least partially overturn the ruling that found Apple guilty of contempt of court. After this decision, we remember that Apple had to drastically change the rules of the App Store, which deprived the company of part of its commission income.
Image source: BoliviaInteligente / unsplash.com
When a court ordered Apple to allow developers to direct app users to payment systems outside the App Store, the company complied but charged a 27% fee on each transaction for such payments. Epic Games is not happy with this approach and has questioned the execution of this decision. The district court subsequently ruled that Apple violated the previous order and found the company guilty of contempt of court. After that, Apple allowed developers to publish links to external payment methods without charging a commission.
Of course, Apple is trying to challenge the decision and refund the commission. At the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider Apple’s argument that a finding that the company was guilty of contempt in its dispute with Epic Games should be overturned. Apple argued that the literal meaning of the injunction did not include a prohibition on charging, but that the lower court was incorrect on its basis. “Spirit of Prescription” and confirmed that the company was found guilty of contempt of court.
Last week, Apple filed a brief with the Supreme Court outlining its position on the merits of the case and reiterated that the contempt order should be vacated because the original order did not explicitly prohibit charging fees for purchases outside the App Store. Apple warned that upholding the ruling could risk judicial overreach in enforcing the order and create uncertainty for the company about what specific actions the ruling prohibits. Epic Games has until November 13 to submit a response to this application; currently, the U.S. Supreme Court has received multiple applications from amicus curiae (interested parties not directly involved in the case).
Photo credit: Tingey Injury / unsplash.com
The U.S. Department of Justice stated “A defense to civil contempt is available only if the defendant’s conduct clearly falls within the specific language of the injunction<..>It’s legal. “The department noted that this condition was not met when Apple set a 27% commission on payments made through third-party systems. A plea to contempt of court is appropriate if: “Reasonable suspicion” As to whether the prohibition actually applies to these acts – taking into account the above, the Department emphasizes that the Supreme Court “Contempt judgment regarding 27% commission must be overturned”.
At the same time, the accusation cannot be dismissed entirely: the injunction requires Apple to allow the use of both buttons and links, while the mechanism implemented by the company only allows the placement of links. Therefore, the Justice Department concluded that the Supreme Court should vacate the existing judgment and remand the case back to the original court for a new trial. “Reasonable suspicion”.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Commerce for Progress, former employees of U.S. federal antitrust agencies, the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE), and a number of industry associations and other organizations also filed similar documents with the Supreme Court. They all supported the argument that there was no reason to hold Apple guilty of contempt; the court must enforce the letter, not the spirit, of the injunction. In addition, ICLE emphasizes that “Choosing a cost-effective way to comply is still compliance.”. and directed the court to determine the size of Apple’s commission “‘Direct Price Regulation’ Case”which ‘Usually avoids antitrust courts’added a former antitrust agency employee, citing precedent.
If you find an error, select it with your mouse and press CTRL+ENTER.