GoKawiilApple has responded to Epic’s opposition to its request to pause lower-court proceedings over App Store commissions while the Supreme Court reviews part of the case. Here’s what that means.
Apple argues Epic’s reasoning is wrong
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether Apple was properly held in civil contempt for charging a commission on purchases completed outside the U.S. App Store.
This specific dispute stems from a 2021 injunction requiring Apple to let developers direct users to off-App Store purchase options. Although the injunction did not explicitly prohibit commissions on those transactions, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers later ruled that Apple’s implementation violated the order and held the company in contempt. Apple has been fighting that finding ever since.
As soon as the Supreme Court agreed to review the finding, Apple moved to pause the lower-court proceedings that will consider what commission, if any, it can charge on such purchases.
Apple argues that the Supreme Court’s decision could eliminate the need for those proceedings or significantly reshape them, so it wants the lower court to wait, rather than move forward with work that may later need to be revisited.
Epic sees it differently. As we covered yesterday, the company argues that this request to stay the lower-court proceedings while the Supreme Court reviews the civil contempt finding is “Apple’s third attempt to delay the inevitable: a hearing to evaluate Apple’s proposed fee on steered transactions.”
In its opposition to Apple’s request, the Fortnite maker also said that “[e]ven if the Supreme Court agrees with Apple’s arguments [regarding contempt], there would still be further proceedings on remand, particularly on the question of commission, and those proceedings are likely to look similar, if not the same, regardless of” whether the Supreme Court reviews the contempt ruling.
Now, Apple has responded to Epic’s opposition, repeatedly arguing that its claims rest on incorrect assumptions, mischaracterize the scope of the Supreme Court’s review, and understate the impact that review could have on the lower-court proceedings:
“Having fought to hold Apple in contempt and having defended this Court’s contempt finding on appeal, Epic’s central argument now is that the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari to decide the contempt question is somehow irrelevant. That is wrong: the only basis for remand proceedings on the commission is this Court’s contempt finding—affirmed by the Ninth Circuit—that Apple violated the original injunction. […]”
... continue reading