Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Apple Wins Delay on Anti-Steering Injuction

Stephen Nellis (Hacker News):

But with just slightly more than 12 hours remaining before the deadline, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Apple’s request to pause the order.

The appeals court order means Apple will not have to make the changes while it pursues a potentially years-long appeal of the Epic Games decision, which was largely favorable to the iPhone maker aside from the order to allow buttons to outside payment methods.

Russell Brandom:

As a result of the stay, Apple can maintain its IAP system as the sole source of in-app payments on iOS, despite the district court’s earlier ruling that the exclusive arrangement is illegal.


“Our concern is that these changes would have created new privacy and security risks, and disrupted the user experience customers love about the App Store,” said Apple spokesperson Marni Goldberg in a statement.

John Gruber:

The injunction requires only that Apple allow other forms of payment processing, including links to the web — not that they aren’t entitled to monetize the platform by charging a mandatory commission. You might say, well, wait a minute, if apps are able to use payment processors other than Apple’s IAP, wouldn’t it be complicated and difficult to figure how to account for and collect these fees? Basically, that’s Apple’s argument.

Florian Mueller:

But the real #epicfail here--which has significant implications beyond Epic Games v. Apple has apparently not been noticed yet by others reporting on the case. The largest and most influential U.S. regional appeals court denied a motion by the Coalition for App Fairness and some of its members to submit an amicus brief in support of Epic’s opposition to Apple’s motion, and the denial of an amicus motion is nothing short of a nightmare for any advocacy group[…]


As a result, the CAF now faces a credibility issue in any other App Store cases around the globe in which it may try to support Epic or even another one of its large members. Even if other courts ultimately allowed the CAF to join other cases, Apple would point to the Ninth Circuit decision, which at a minimum would diminish the credibility of anything the CAF would say on Epic’s behalf. The CAF has now been stigmatized as part of an Epic anti-Apple initiative designed to raise issues regardless of whether those were "organic or manufactured" as the evidence shows.

David Barnard:

Winning these court battles isn’t all upside for Apple. There’s a growing consensus that the mobile app store duopoly is stifling innovation and otherwise harming developers. That current law isn’t sufficient to reign them in gives legislators more reason to act.


Comments RSS · Twitter

Leave a Comment