Apple again asks Court of Appeal to stay Epic Games injunction

Lawyers from Apple have filed a new motion saying that the Epic Games injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would "harm customers," and it wants a stay until all appeals have been heard.

Following the original September 2021 ruling by US District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez in the Epic Games vs Apple lawsuit, Apple filed for a stay on the injunction until October. Then it applied again in late October, saying it had done some of what the court asked, but still wanted the rest put on hold.

The injunction chiefly requires Apple to cease its anti-steering developer guidelines. These prohibited developers from telling users within their apps that there were alternative ways to pay.

Apple has since removed its restriction regarding advertising these outside purchase options. Now in a new filing ahead of the injunction's December 9 start date, however, Apple is again arguing that the injunction should be stopped.

"Apple Inc. has been ordered to change its business model in a way that will harm customers, developers, and Apple itself," says the company in a filing seen by Bloomberg Law. "The injunction should be administratively stayed before it becomes effective on December 9, and remain stayed until the appeals are resolved."

"The district court erred in entering a nationwide, class-type injunction in a single-plaintiff case brought by a developer that has no apps on the App Store, proved no harm from the provisions at issue, and did not even directly challenge or seek to enjoin them," continues the filing.

"Undisputed evidence establishes that Apple will be harmed by precipitous implementation of this unlawful and inequitable injunction," says Apple. "Apple should not be required to change an integral part of its business model, which has been in place for more than a decade, until this Court decides the appeals on the merits."

As before, Apple further maintains that the injunction will not make it through the appeals process.

17 Comments

maximara 409 comments · 15 Years

About 3 years ago

I thought this had already been decided and not granted. What am I missing?

mikethemartian 1493 comments · 18 Years

maximara said:

I thought this had already been decided and not granted. What am I missing?

You don’t exhaust your appeals until you get to the US Supreme Court where they will either accept to hear the case or not. Or they might send it back down to a lower court.

shareef777 136 comments · 16 Years

maximara said:

I thought this had already been decided and not granted. What am I missing?

Right. I'd love to hear more on how the "injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would harm customers". I can definitely see how it would hurt Apple's pockets, but not seeing how it would harm customers.

tenthousandthings 1060 comments · 17 Years

maximara said:

I thought this had already been decided and not granted. What am I missing?

The first request for a stay was to the original judge. This request is to the circuit Court of Appeals.

The original judge was unlikely to grant a stay. The appeals court is the appropriate court to grant a stay, and it seems likely it will do so.

shareef777 said:

maximara said:

I thought this had already been decided and not granted. What am I missing?

Right. I'd love to hear more on how the "injunction forces changes to its App Store business that would harm customers". I can definitely see how it would hurt Apple's pockets, but not seeing how it would harm customers.
Apple isn’t exaggerating the impact of changing the methods they use to collect their share of IAPs in mobile games. It’s not a small thing.

They may be exaggerating its effect on customers, but I suppose that really depends on what Apple does, and how developers respond. Higher prices for Apple customers who don’t want to give their personal information to a company like Epic seems a real possibility, for example.