7 ms·

This leaves in place the bulk of the ruling favoring Apple, but also the elimination of the anti-steerage rules that Epic successfully challenged (sort of, the

This leaves in place the bulk of the ruling favoring Apple, but also the elimination of the anti-steerage rules that Epic successfully challenged (sort of, the trial judge mostly did that on her own). So, to summarize, the relevant market is this dispute was the mobile game market (not an iPhone-specific market like Epic wanted), Apple does not have a monopoly in that market, and Apple doesn’t need to charge less in the App Store or for in-app purchases. But, due to California law, Apple cannot prevent developers from informing consumers that lower prices are available outside of the app.

voisin 3y ago
> due to California law Will this lead to a carve out for California users, similar to the carve out they are making for app stores in the EU?
- granzymes 3y ago
  My understanding is “no” (Apple is enjoined against enforcing the rules on anyone), but if we wait a few days we’ll know for sure. Apple’s cert petition at the Supreme Court was basically the argument that’s it’s unfair that a lawsuit from one developer would prevent its anti-steerage language from adhering to any developer.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    > Apple’s cert petition at the Supreme Court was basically the argument that’s it’s unfair that a lawsuit from one developer would prevent its anti-steerage language from adhering to any developer. Regardless of the legality around this, I just don't get that kind of thinking. So anyone who wants to be able to exercise their legal right would have to, individually (or as a class, I guess) take Apple to court over this? That would actually be kinda fun, now that I think about it. Apple getting hit with thousands of lawsuits over the same thing, all of them settled case law, having to spend all that money on lawyers and court fees. This reminds me of a dumb quirk of Italian law. Italy offers citizenship to non-citizen foreigners who can prove an unbroken line of citizenship back to their most recent Italian ancestor who was an Italian citizen. (It's more complicated than that and there are some rules and caveats, but that's the basic idea.) There's a super-misogynistic part of that law that says citizenship cannot be passed through female ancestors prior to 1948. The Italian Supreme Court has ruled that part of the law unconstitutional. But the law is still on the books, and Italy's legislature has not updated it to remove the unconstitutional language, so anyone who wants to use that route to get citizenship has to go to court to do so. It's such a waste of everyone's time and money (well, the lawyers, as usual, make out quite well: a slam-dunk case for them that takes very little effort).
    - akerl_ 3y ago
      > So anyone who wants to be able to exercise their legal right would have to, individually (or as a class, I guess) take Apple to court over this? Sort of? Apple's appeal was essentially: 1. The federal court was asked by a single litigant to rule on whether this provision of our agreement with them is unfair. 2. Because the role of courts is to provide relief to the litigants of the case, this court has exceeded its authority by making a ruling against all agreements that Apple has with other parties. I don't know that they necessarily expected to win on that claim, but it doesn't seem to be entirely without merit. There is risk in a world where courts can use individual cases to effectively act with executive and legislative powers.
bluish29 3y ago
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but what actually happens if there is a federal court ruling that goes against a state (i.e. CA) law. Which things take precedent if the supreme court wouldn't take it. Maybe this is not the situation here and misunderstood it completely, but let's say then this is a theoretical question.
- granzymes 3y ago
  A Federal judge applied California law (in this case, a law against unfair business conduct). That’s normal, just like state courts can (sometimes) apply Federal law. Federal courts can “certify” questions of state law to the state courts if they don’t know how they should be applying state law, but in this case neither the district court nor the 9th Circuit felt the need to ask for clarification. The Supreme Court has final say on questions of Federal and Constitutional law. State courts have final say on State law and State Constitutions. A State law that directly conflicts with a Federal law is preempted. There are also sometimes “zones” of preemption created by broad Federal laws. But, in this case, there is no conflict.
lolinder 3y ago
It sounds like the anti-steerage rules are still in limbo—they have not yet taken effect while the appeal is ongoing, and the article doesn't indicate they're already officially set to take effect at a certain date. Does someone more familiar with the process know if it's a guarantee now that Apple will be forced to comply with that part of the original ruling, or is there room for them to get it removed or postponed indefinitely?
- granzymes 3y ago
  The 9th Circuit stayed its mandate until the Supreme Court decided whether to grant cert. That stay expired this morning when the Supreme Court published its orders list. The 9th Circuit’s mandate will now be sent down to the district court, and judgement entered (on just the anti-steerage provision) for Epic. It’s a done deal at this point.
alberth 3y ago
> "But, due to California law, Apple cannot prevent developers from informing consumers that lower prices are available outside of the app." Is this CA law enforceable because Apple is HQ in CA, or simply because they do business there? - if simply due to operating business there, couldn't Apple geofence the entire state and only allow developers the option to steer consumers who are using their app within CA state lines? - if it's simply because Apple is HQ in CA, couldn't Apple simply move it's HQ (on paper) to another US state (like Texas, where a lot of other tech companies have moved HQs)
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  The location of a business’s structure labeled “HQ” has no relevance to applicability of laws. If the business is conducting business with people within a given geographic boundary, then the laws of that geographic boundary apply to the business. > if simply due to operating business there, couldn't Apple geofence the entire state and only allow developers the option to steer consumers who are using their app within CA state lines? Yes.
  - otterley 3y ago
    Sorry, but that is not the law. There are lots of factors that go into choice of law, and you can't distill it to a few sentences like this. In any event, almost every business (and even B2C) contract and EULA these days includes a choice of law provision that parties agree to bind themselves to, and Apple's are no exception.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      If that was true, why would any business subject themselves to California’s usually more stringent regulations? > U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 rejected Epic's antitrust claims against Apple. But the judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition law by barring developers from "steering" users to make digital purchases that bypass Apple's in-app system, which Epic contends could save them money with lower commissions.
JeffSnazz 3y ago
> Apple does not have a monopoly in that market Why do we act like there is a "mobile game market" when there are clearly two distinct major private markets, both monopolized by definition of private control over basic aspects like pricing and content, including mandating a private tax rate?
- rurp 3y ago
  Because the two giant companies that own those markets like it this way, and they spend millions per year on lawyers and lobbyists to keep that position.
  - pipes 3y ago
    Or because those two companies created those platforms. I don't see why they owe it to other companies to lower their prices.
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      It's both. They lobbied to keep it that way. I'm a little glad they did.
    - hobs 3y ago
      Because it actively harms the users of the market, and we'd control the regulation in our favor if big companies didn't brainwash everyone.
    - legitster 3y ago
      It's not even clear that breaking up the app stores would be good for consumers or developers. Having to load an app onto 15 different app stores to capture the market sounds like hell. The only ones who would really benefit are other large corporations like Epic.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        And Epic only cares because they want to run their own private, exclusive App Store.

voisin 3y ago

> due to California law Will this lead to a carve out for California users, similar to the carve out they are making for app stores in the EU?

granzymes 3y ago
My understanding is “no” (Apple is enjoined against enforcing the rules on anyone), but if we wait a few days we’ll know for sure. Apple’s cert petition at the Supreme Court was basically the argument that’s it’s unfair that a lawsuit from one developer would prevent its anti-steerage language from adhering to any developer.
- kelnos 3y ago
  > Apple’s cert petition at the Supreme Court was basically the argument that’s it’s unfair that a lawsuit from one developer would prevent its anti-steerage language from adhering to any developer. Regardless of the legality around this, I just don't get that kind of thinking. So anyone who wants to be able to exercise their legal right would have to, individually (or as a class, I guess) take Apple to court over this? That would actually be kinda fun, now that I think about it. Apple getting hit with thousands of lawsuits over the same thing, all of them settled case law, having to spend all that money on lawyers and court fees. This reminds me of a dumb quirk of Italian law. Italy offers citizenship to non-citizen foreigners who can prove an unbroken line of citizenship back to their most recent Italian ancestor who was an Italian citizen. (It's more complicated than that and there are some rules and caveats, but that's the basic idea.) There's a super-misogynistic part of that law that says citizenship cannot be passed through female ancestors prior to 1948. The Italian Supreme Court has ruled that part of the law unconstitutional. But the law is still on the books, and Italy's legislature has not updated it to remove the unconstitutional language, so anyone who wants to use that route to get citizenship has to go to court to do so. It's such a waste of everyone's time and money (well, the lawyers, as usual, make out quite well: a slam-dunk case for them that takes very little effort).
  - akerl_ 3y ago
    > So anyone who wants to be able to exercise their legal right would have to, individually (or as a class, I guess) take Apple to court over this? Sort of? Apple's appeal was essentially: 1. The federal court was asked by a single litigant to rule on whether this provision of our agreement with them is unfair. 2. Because the role of courts is to provide relief to the litigants of the case, this court has exceeded its authority by making a ruling against all agreements that Apple has with other parties. I don't know that they necessarily expected to win on that claim, but it doesn't seem to be entirely without merit. There is risk in a world where courts can use individual cases to effectively act with executive and legislative powers.

bluish29 3y ago

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but what actually happens if there is a federal court ruling that goes against a state (i.e. CA) law. Which things take precedent if the supreme court wouldn't take it. Maybe this is not the situation here and misunderstood it completely, but let's say then this is a theoretical question.

granzymes 3y ago
A Federal judge applied California law (in this case, a law against unfair business conduct). That’s normal, just like state courts can (sometimes) apply Federal law. Federal courts can “certify” questions of state law to the state courts if they don’t know how they should be applying state law, but in this case neither the district court nor the 9th Circuit felt the need to ask for clarification. The Supreme Court has final say on questions of Federal and Constitutional law. State courts have final say on State law and State Constitutions. A State law that directly conflicts with a Federal law is preempted. There are also sometimes “zones” of preemption created by broad Federal laws. But, in this case, there is no conflict.

lolinder 3y ago

It sounds like the anti-steerage rules are still in limbo—they have not yet taken effect while the appeal is ongoing, and the article doesn't indicate they're already officially set to take effect at a certain date. Does someone more familiar with the process know if it's a guarantee now that Apple will be forced to comply with that part of the original ruling, or is there room for them to get it removed or postponed indefinitely?

granzymes 3y ago
The 9th Circuit stayed its mandate until the Supreme Court decided whether to grant cert. That stay expired this morning when the Supreme Court published its orders list. The 9th Circuit’s mandate will now be sent down to the district court, and judgement entered (on just the anti-steerage provision) for Epic. It’s a done deal at this point.

alberth 3y ago

> "But, due to California law, Apple cannot prevent developers from informing consumers that lower prices are available outside of the app." Is this CA law enforceable because Apple is HQ in CA, or simply because they do business there? - if simply due to operating business there, couldn't Apple geofence the entire state and only allow developers the option to steer consumers who are using their app within CA state lines? - if it's simply because Apple is HQ in CA, couldn't Apple simply move it's HQ (on paper) to another US state (like Texas, where a lot of other tech companies have moved HQs)

lotsofpulp 3y ago
The location of a business’s structure labeled “HQ” has no relevance to applicability of laws. If the business is conducting business with people within a given geographic boundary, then the laws of that geographic boundary apply to the business. > if simply due to operating business there, couldn't Apple geofence the entire state and only allow developers the option to steer consumers who are using their app within CA state lines? Yes.
- otterley 3y ago
  Sorry, but that is not the law. There are lots of factors that go into choice of law, and you can't distill it to a few sentences like this. In any event, almost every business (and even B2C) contract and EULA these days includes a choice of law provision that parties agree to bind themselves to, and Apple's are no exception.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    If that was true, why would any business subject themselves to California’s usually more stringent regulations? > U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 rejected Epic's antitrust claims against Apple. But the judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition law by barring developers from "steering" users to make digital purchases that bypass Apple's in-app system, which Epic contends could save them money with lower commissions.

JeffSnazz 3y ago

> Apple does not have a monopoly in that market Why do we act like there is a "mobile game market" when there are clearly two distinct major private markets, both monopolized by definition of private control over basic aspects like pricing and content, including mandating a private tax rate?

rurp 3y ago
Because the two giant companies that own those markets like it this way, and they spend millions per year on lawyers and lobbyists to keep that position.
- pipes 3y ago
  Or because those two companies created those platforms. I don't see why they owe it to other companies to lower their prices.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    It's both. They lobbied to keep it that way. I'm a little glad they did.
  - hobs 3y ago
    Because it actively harms the users of the market, and we'd control the regulation in our favor if big companies didn't brainwash everyone.
  - legitster 3y ago
    It's not even clear that breaking up the app stores would be good for consumers or developers. Having to load an app onto 15 different app stores to capture the market sounds like hell. The only ones who would really benefit are other large corporations like Epic.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      And Epic only cares because they want to run their own private, exclusive App Store.