Apple spends its last bullet in legal drama against Epic Games, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to work

The battle between Apple and Epic is fiercer than ever, and in Cupertino they are resisting, even if it is for now. For those who don’t know how it all started, it’s simple: Epic Games, developers of Fortnite among other video games, took on Apple in not wanting to accept that it functions as a payment processor and keep 30% of all purchases.

This all escalated until Epic removed in-app purchases from iOS and started directing users to its own payment provider. It was a clear violation of Apple’s terms and conditions, and after seeing that they had no intention of abiding by them, in Cupertino they made the decision to remove the application from the App Storeexplaining to Epic that they could return when they meet the regulations.

We already had two sentences, and the third could arrive

It all ended up going to trial, and in September 2021 came the first of the sentences in which both and neither were deemed fair at the same time. On the one hand it was said that what Apple practiced was not a monopoly as Epic accused it, but on the other Apple was forced to allow third-party payment processors

. The two appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Apple for not wanting to allow payments through a system other than its own and Epic for insisting it was a monopoly.

The resolution of this appeal it was not particularly favorable for Apple. In fact, one of the judges (Milan D. Smith Jr) was pretty harsh on the company saying that:

“While Apple’s motion arguments are not technically frivolous, they ignore key aspects of the panel’s reasoning and the District Court’s key factual findings. When our reasoning and the District Court’s findings are considered , Apple’s arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. Apple’s arguments regarding the status and scope of the injunction merely mask its disagreement with the district court’s findings and its objection to state liability in as allegations of error of law.”

In simpler terms, what this judge is saying is that while it is true that Apple’s arguments are not absurd, as soon as they are questioned a little they end up falling under their own weight. It also indicates that Apple is trying to pass off its disagreement with the resolution as a legal error. That is, due to a misinterpretation of the law by the court, which the judge did not appreciate.

The Supreme Court could decide everything… or ignore it

If we stop here, Apple should allow these third-party payments, but it won’t. At least for now. in cupertino succeeded in paralyzing the application of the judgment of this Court of Appeal for 90 days so that they can prepare their case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

It is the last court in the American country. There’s only one character capable of overturning one of their convictions, and that’s the president’s pardon. They usually don’t respond to every request that comes their way. In fact, it’s normal that they don’t. If they receive 7,000 resources each year, they serve about 150.

There is no official list of requirements as to when a case is going to be heard and when not by the Court, although they tend to deal with – at least that’s what they told me explained to the University – cases that deal with a circumstance of particular importance to the interpretation and application of the Constitution, international treaties, or federal laws, or when the Court intends to change its mind on a certain doctrine

(as happened recently with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationa rather minor matter, but one that was used to bring abortion rights in the United States back to where it was before Roe vs. Wade and returning jurisdiction to the states).

I explain this by trying understand the scope that these things must have to reach the Supreme Court. Personally, I’d be too surprised if they even wanted to read the case. It doesn’t affect the Constitution, international treaties, or the interpretation of any federal law (although Apple’s lawyers tried to “sneak through” their appeal, as the judge previously explained) .

From my perspective, those 90 days will most likely pass, the U.S. Supreme Court will ignore what is presented to it, the restriction on applying the appeals court ruling will be lifted, and Apple you have no choice but to allow third-party payment providers. We’ll be watching to see what happens, but at first it doesn’t look good for those in Cupertino.

In Applesphere | iOS 17 now recognizes clothing label symbols so you can put the washing machine in without pain

In Applesphere | We already have a winner: the legal drama between Epic and Apple marks a new (and decisive) chapter