AppleInsider is supported by its audience and can earn commission as an Amazon Associate and Affiliate Partner on qualifying purchases. These affiliate partnerships do not influence our editorial content.
Apple told the court it was complying with part of an injunction received following the Epic Games App Store lawsuit, as the company tried to delay implementation of other elements of the decision.
Following the September ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Epic-Apple lawsuit, Apple appealed and requested a stay of the injunction in early October. In a new case filed with the court, Apple said it had done some of what the court asked for, but still wanted the rest to be put on hold.
These changes included updating anti-directional provisions in its developer guidelines, providing more flexibility to contact users and advertise alternative payment methods to users. However, Apple has yet to change the rules for external links or metadata buttons for external payment mechanisms.
Friday court case seen by iPlus mentions that Apple partially complied with the injunction and reiterated that it had already appealed to stay the rest of the injunction. According to Apple, “the immediate implementation of this aspect of the injunction would disrupt the integrity of the iOS ecosystem.”
Apple believes that since the court said Apple’s requirements to force users to use in-app purchases to sell digital content were acceptable, removing restrictions on in-app messaging would effectively work against that. Removing the limits “would force Apple to make its intellectual property available without compensation and reduce customer security and privacy.”
It is further claimed that the injunction would not go through review, as Epic Games has no standing to secure or enforce an injunction due to the lack of a developer account and the lack of products in the App Store.
Since a suspension would theoretically not harm Epic due to the lack of an account, Apple believes that a stay of the remaining injunctive elements should be in the public interest. What Apple has done to its development rules shows “that the company is working in good faith to improve consumers’ access to information in a way that will preserve the integrity of the ecosystem.”
If the court is unwilling to grant a full stay, Apple will insist that a temporary stay be implemented instead, at least while the Ninth Circuit can hear Apple’s appeal.
On October 23, Epic objected to Apple’s earlier appeal, saying such a suspension should not be allowed because Apple does not meet the legal standard to demonstrate that it faces irreparable harm by compliance. Epic’s allegations include comments from Apple after the trial claiming the decision was positive in nature, as well as Apple’s delay in filing a request to stay the injunction.
A hearing to discuss Apple’s appeal and other matters is scheduled for November 9. The company has until December 9 to implement the full injunction.