Apple Asks Court to Throw Out or Narrow Epic Games Win

Apple has spent the past three years not complying with the ruling in Epic v. Apple, and on the day it was required to submit internal documentation explaining what it’s done, the company has instead found yet another stalling tactic. It has asked the Judge who issued the original ruling to throw out or narrow it.

“Apple will and hereby does move that this Court provide relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure from the judgment, and enter an order vacating or narrowing the injunction entered on September 10, 2021,” the Apple filing reads. “This motion is based on this notice and supporting memorandum, the trial record, the appellate record, intervening decisions from the California Sixth District Court of Appeal and U.S. Supreme Court, and other information of which the Court may take judicial notice.”

As you may recall, U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple’s App Store policies were illegal in September 2021, and she required the company to allow developers to use third-party in-app payment systems and communicate with their own customers. Apple spent the next three years defying this order, and after expending its legal options, it issued a set of changes to its App Store policies insuring that those developers who utilized third-party payment systems would pay astronomically higher fees overall because Apple would still charge them 27 percent or 12 percent fees on top. Epic sued Apple, and Apple was required to provide internal documentation showing how it had arrived at this unfair fee structure. It was required to do so by September 30.

Last week, Apple tried to push back its internal revelations one more month, but the Judge overseeing this part of the case denied this request, accusing it of purposefully stalling and lying to court.

But instead of complying with the court order, Apple has instead filed a new motion asking for the 2021 ruling against it to be thrown out or narrowed. Apple’s lawyers cite two legal ruling that have occurred since its defeat to Epic that it claims make the ruling against it unlawful. And that, as such, it should be allowed to continue imposing its App Store anti-steering rules. At the very least, Apple would like the ruling to apply only to Epic and not to all developers that use its App Store.

Florian Mueller has a good explanation of the legal gambit, but it’s interesting to me that Apple isn’t citing legal precedent, but rather unrelated legal decisions that occurred after it was found guilty. One of these cases is from a California state court, while the other is a Supreme Court decision tied to two U.S. states that sued the federal government.