Epic urges court to uphold ruling against Apple's payment restrictions
What's the story
Epic Games has formally responded to Apple's appeal before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), urging the justices to maintain a contempt ruling over App Store payment restrictions. The legal battle between Apple and Epic started in 2020 when Fortnite was removed from the App Store after Epic activated an alternative payment system bypassing Apple's In-App Purchase system.
Legal proceedings
The original ruling did not go entirely in Epic's favor
While the court largely sided with Apple, it did rule that the tech giant could not prevent developers from directing users to alternative payment methods outside the App Store.
In response, Apple allowed those links but imposed new restrictions, including a 27% commission on external purchases and rules limiting how developers could display buttons and links to these alternative payment methods.
Ongoing dispute
Here's a timeline of the legal battle
Epic challenged Apple's new restrictions, with the court agreeing that Apple had violated the original injunction and holding it in civil contempt.
Despite multiple attempts to overturn that ruling, Apple has argued that the original injunction did not explicitly prohibit imposing such restrictions.
However, Epic contends that Apple intentionally circumvented the court order by implementing new rules aimed at achieving similar results as those originally prohibited.
Case escalation
Apple's appeal to SCOTUS
In May, Apple appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in June.
The US government and several legal and business groups filed supporting briefs for Apple.
However, Epic has now filed its official response, arguing that Apple "attempts to avoid contempt by proposing an extreme legal standard."
The company also contends that "Apple devised a plan to circumvent the injunction," claiming it knowingly set a high commission rate for external purchases.
Allegations
Epic asks SCOTUS to uphold contempt ruling or clarify standards
Epic also accuses Apple of trying to cover up its scheme to circumvent the injunction by claiming privilege over more than 57,000 documents.
The company cites Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers's finding that its Vice President of Finance "outright lied under oath" about when Apple decided to impose the new commission.
Finally, Epic asks SCOTUS to either uphold the contempt ruling against Apple or clarify legal standards for contempt and send it back to lower courts for reconsideration under that standard.