Apple expresses concern that a court decision in the App Store case could entail significant yearly expenses.
In a spirited debate on 'The Claman Countdown', senior analyst Craig Moffett discussed the repercussions of the ongoing trade talks on Apple.
Apple, swiftly shifting gears, has pleaded with a federal appeals court to postpone a district judge's verdict requiring them to promote competition within their exclusive Apple App Store. As per their arguments, failure to pause the decision might cause irreparable harm to the tech titan.
The maelstrom began when a district court judge ruled against Apple, citing violations of an order issued in a 2020 antitrust lawsuit that emanated from Epic Games, the mastermind behind the sensation Fortnite. The verdict demanded that Apple relaxed its stringent App Store rules for developers[1].
The ruling essentially targeted two prominent aspects: the 27% fee levied on app developers when users made purchases outside the App Store and restrictions on the visibility of external payment links.
The Silicon Valley giant voiced its concerns in a Wednesday filing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It argued that the district court's order presents a potential threat to Apple's control over business operations and its platforms' integrity [2][3].
AAPL
Allegedly, the injunction will cause Apple "substantial financial loss annually" unless the verdict is overturned [3]. Nevertheless, Apple contends the restrictions were imposed as penalties for non-compliance with an earlier state-law Injunction that it deems invalid [2][3].
APPLE INC.
Over at Spotify, plans for an update to their app for US users are taking shape following a recent court ruling in the Apple case [3].
197.49
In a firm retort, Epic Games declared that Apple's attempt to delay the decision was a futile, last-ditch effort to hinder competition and prolong revenue through exorbitant fees at the expense of consumers and developers [4].
1.24
Epic Games backed their statement with assertions that the surge in competition among app developers since the court ruling has resulted in a myriad of benefits for consumers, such as better payment methods, improved deals, and enhanced consumer choice [4]. The gaming giant stated their intentions to launch Fortnite on iPhones and iPads in the United States by this week [4].
0.63%
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated in her ruling that Apple had relentlessly pursued billions in revenue by defying the court's injunctions [1][4].
She also suggested that Apple had misled the court regarding its attempts to comply with her injunction and could potentially be subject to a criminal contempt investigation [1][4].
Powered By
| Ticker | Security | Last | Change | Change % || --- | --- | --- | --- | --- || AAPL | APPLE INC. | 197.49 | 1.24 | 0.63% || Powered By |
- Apple Asks for Reconsideration of Ruling on App Store Policies - The New York Times
- Apple May Face Criminal Contempt charges for Breaching Court Order - Reuters
- Apple and Epic Games face Supreme Court decision after legal battle over Fortnite - The Verge
- Epic Games reacts to Apple's Contempt of Court Charge - Polygon
- In response to the district court's verdict, Apple has appealed to a federal court, arguing that the decision could lead to substantial financial loss annually and threaten its control over business operations.
- The ruling, issued in a 2020 antitrust lawsuit, targeted Apple's App Store rules for developers, specifically the 27% fee on app purchases made outside the App Store and restrictions on external payment link visibility.
- Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, has accused Apple of engaging in a last-ditch effort to hindered competition, prolong revenue through exorbitant fees, and mislead the court regarding its attempts to comply with the injunction.
- The ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games has implications for the technology and finance sectors, as the court's decision could potentially reshape the markets for both companies and the developers that rely on them.
- If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the district court's decision, it could lead to increased competition in the markets, benefiting consumers with better payment methods, improved deals, and enhanced consumer choice.
