3 ms·

Apple requests Epic anti-steering injunction be tossed given new precedent

19 points by benoau 2y ago

yunohn 2y ago
Apple’s financial and legal teams must be throwing a ball… > the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair This seems unfair, as two opposing judgements for different plaintiffs by different courts shouldn’t result in just the preferential outcome for the defendant. > there is no proof that users would go to Epic and spend money without anti-steering in place instead of some alternative store This is equally crazy - how can Epic show proof without ever being given a chance by Apple to try? Can’t they use examples from the Reader app carve out like Amazon/Netflix, which prove that consumers will pay for things outside the App Store when given the chance? Disclaimer: IANAL
- nialse 2y ago
  It is likely the Apple lawyers’ response to the judges order to “find a way” to produce the 1.3 million over the weekend. Stalling the process is certainly one way.
- Kon-Peki 2y ago
  > there is no proof that users would go to Epic and spend money without anti-steering in place The article didn't do a good job of explaining things. It does link to some legal documents, in which you see that Epic is making their claim on behalf of all the various independent Unreal Engine game developers out there and their users. Not users of the things that Epic publishes directly on the App Store. The Supreme Court ruling is saying no, you can't do it that way. You can file a class action lawsuit - that would be ok. Or the independent game developers could each file lawsuits against Apple - that would also be ok. But Epic can't file a non-class action lawsuit and claim that all the independent game developers would prefer to send their in-app-purchases to Epic's store. If the court is to consider that game studio ABC has been harmed, then game studio ABC has to go into court and say that they've been harmed.
supermatt 2y ago
> To simplify it as much as possible, the Beverage vs Apple case establishes a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal government. So, the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair. That is nonsense. A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.
- vinay427 2y ago
  IANAL so this specific case notwithstanding, that sounds like a gross overgeneralization of the Supremacy Clause, which at least in interpretation is largely constrained to the powers that the Constitution gives the federal government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
  - supermatt 2y ago
    It literally says, in the link that you have posted: "The Supremacy Clause is essentially a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law."
    - spott 2y ago
      Keyword there is “certain”.
- abduhl 2y ago
  This has not been true since the mid-1900s. Federal courts considering claims based on state law are bound by state court precedent. Even the US Supreme Court.
  - supermatt 2y ago
    Antitrust law is a federal issue.

19 points by benoau 2y ago

Apple’s financial and legal teams must be throwing a ball… > the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair This seems unfair, as two opposing judgements for different plaintiffs by different courts shouldn’t result in just the preferential outcome for the defendant. > there is no proof that users would go to Epic and spend money without anti-steering in place instead of some alternative store This is equally crazy - how can Epic show proof without ever being given a chance by Apple to try? Can’t they use examples from the Reader app carve out like Amazon/Netflix, which prove that consumers will pay for things outside the App Store when given the chance? Disclaimer: IANAL

nialse 2y ago
It is likely the Apple lawyers’ response to the judges order to “find a way” to produce the 1.3 million over the weekend. Stalling the process is certainly one way.
Kon-Peki 2y ago
> there is no proof that users would go to Epic and spend money without anti-steering in place The article didn't do a good job of explaining things. It does link to some legal documents, in which you see that Epic is making their claim on behalf of all the various independent Unreal Engine game developers out there and their users. Not users of the things that Epic publishes directly on the App Store. The Supreme Court ruling is saying no, you can't do it that way. You can file a class action lawsuit - that would be ok. Or the independent game developers could each file lawsuits against Apple - that would also be ok. But Epic can't file a non-class action lawsuit and claim that all the independent game developers would prefer to send their in-app-purchases to Epic's store. If the court is to consider that game studio ABC has been harmed, then game studio ABC has to go into court and say that they've been harmed.

supermatt 2y ago

> To simplify it as much as possible, the Beverage vs Apple case establishes a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal government. So, the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair. That is nonsense. A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.

vinay427 2y ago
IANAL so this specific case notwithstanding, that sounds like a gross overgeneralization of the Supremacy Clause, which at least in interpretation is largely constrained to the powers that the Constitution gives the federal government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
- supermatt 2y ago
  It literally says, in the link that you have posted: "The Supremacy Clause is essentially a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law."
  - spott 2y ago
    Keyword there is “certain”.
abduhl 2y ago
This has not been true since the mid-1900s. Federal courts considering claims based on state law are bound by state court precedent. Even the US Supreme Court.
- supermatt 2y ago
  Antitrust law is a federal issue.