Apple tells Epic judge to consider Supreme Court NCAA decision

Apple's legal team submitted a decision by the US Supreme Court about the NCAA to the court over its lawsuit with Epic Games, claiming the decision "provides guidance" that the judge should consider for her own decision over the fate of the App Store.

Apple's main trial activity with Epic finished in May, with both sides now awaiting a decision from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on the matter. While the wait continues, Apple's lawyers are taking advantage of a Supreme Court decision to help its case.

The filing, spotted by Stephen Totilo, refers to the decision on the case of the National Collegiate Athletic Association v Alston, et al. The decision from June 21 is attached in full to the filing, intended to be read by Judge Rogers.

Apple's lawyers in its case against Epic just submitted a copy of this week's NCAA v Alston Supreme Court decision to the judge in Epic v Apple. They say it "provides guidance" on issues in the Fortnite case pic.twitter.com/8M6q6NMwvR
— Stephen Totilo (@stephentotilo) June 25, 2021

"The Supreme Court's opinion provides guidance on several issues in this case, including the analysis of procompetitive business justifications, substantially less restrictive alternatives to challenged restraints, and remedies," writes Apple's lawyers.

In that NCAA decision, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the NCAA was immune from federal antitrust law. The unanimous ruling offered that attempts by the NCAA to limit compensation to student athletes, in a bid to keep them classed as amateur, should be subject to rule of reason analysis that apply to antitrust cases.

In explaining the submission, Richard Hoeg of Hoeg Law said the Supreme Court "put out a whole lot of language saying courts should be very careful about rule of reason findings." The need to be careful "undoubtedly helps Apple," Hoeg continued, with the filing being Apple "making sure that the judge knows that SCOTUS just said all of this on the rule that she is using to evaluate Apple's business practices."

Hoeg also believes Gonzalez Rogers "definitely knew" about the Supreme Court decision before Apple's filing was made.

Keep up with everything Apple in the weekly AppleInsider Podcast — and get a fast news update from AppleInsider Daily. Just say, "Hey, Siri," to your HomePod mini and ask for these podcasts, and our latest HomeKit Insider episode too.

If you want an ad-free main AppleInsider Podcast experience, you can support the AppleInsider podcast by subscribing for $5 per month through Apple's Podcasts app, or via Patreon if you prefer any other podcast player.

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

17 Comments

mr lizard 354 comments · 15 Years

About 3 years ago

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well.

genovelle 1481 comments · 16 Years

I think it is more of an opportunity to put that ruling on the record because is helps their case.

focher 686 comments · 16 Years

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well.

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

bulk001 787 comments · 16 Years

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well.

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

Yes, like all the other expert legal opinions posted here by lawyers! 🤷🏼‍♂️ Somehow I doubt that a search in DocketBird will reveal you to be any great legal scholar ….

tommikele 599 comments · 12 Years

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well.

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

I appreciate your comment. So many people here and places like 9to5 comment about things they know nothing about, but wish to present themselves as experts or highly experienced attorneys with practices focused on the subject at hand. In reality, they are responding with emotional based fanboism and know nothing about the legal aspects of the topic. When you do have some direct experience and read this stuff you want to slap them (not literally) upside the head and let them know they may be fooling themselves, but not you.

In this case, Mr. Lizard is a pretty good example of it. He also spells patronizing with an "s" instead of a "z" indicating he is educated somewhere other than the US and probably a resident/citizen of the UK or Australia or some other place where the Queen's grammar rules. That makes it highly unlikely he knows anything about the the US courts or the subject other than the articles his fanboism leads him to read. To sum it up, he probably doesn't know squat about this and his comment about the Judge reflects the ignorance and a lack of respect for the law and court system.