Apple and Epic have presented new requests regarding whether the court can uphold a recent ruling in the ongoing App Store legal battle. Here are the details.

Some recent information about this extensive case

Last Monday, April 6, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request to postpone a recent ruling requiring Apple to loosen some App Store rules regarding alternative payment methods.

Apple submitted this request on Friday, April 3, and the court accepted it on Monday, April 6.

On the same day, Epic filed a motion for the court to reconsider its decision to accept Apple’s request for postponement (in fact, two motions were filed, which we will discuss later).

Epic argued that the court's decision was made prematurely, stating that under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, it had 10 days to express a counter-opinion.

This federal rule indicates that the court can act before this 10-day period expires, "but the court may do so only if it gives reasonable notice to the parties that it is considering acting earlier." However, according to Epic, this was not the case.

Therefore, on April 6, Epic filed two motions: one for the court to reconsider its decision to accept Apple’s request for postponement on April 6, and the other a counter-motion against Apple’s original request for postponement on April 3.

Epic characterized Apple’s request for postponement as "another delaying tactic aimed at preventing the court from establishing important and lasting limits on the authority to impose unnecessary fees on third-party payments."

Response from Apple

Yesterday, Apple responded to Epic’s motion for reconsideration of the postponement.

In its response, Apple argued that there was no reason to reconsider the postponement, refuting Epic’s claims of harm. Apple added that Epic had not provided any evidence that uncertainty regarding the adoption of alternative payment options would delay developers.

Apple asserted that it does not take commissions from connected purchases while requesting Supreme Court review, claiming that the postponement helps avoid unnecessary lower court proceedings while maintaining the current framework.

You can see Apple’s full response below:

Download

Response from Epic

Earlier today, Epic responded to Apple’s reply to its motion for the court to reconsider the postponement.

In its response, Epic argued that the postponement has already caused harm by creating uncertainty around commissions, which has deterred developers from adopting alternative payment options and ultimately delayed the competitive changes envisioned by the court's original decision.

Epic added that Apple has not demonstrated a genuine need for postponement, and that the Supreme Court appeal would not eliminate the need for further proceedings in the lower court, so both processes could proceed simultaneously.

You can see Epic’s full response below:

Download

Do you think the court should lift the postponement or maintain it? Share your thoughts with us in the comments.

Products worth checking out on Amazon

  • David Pogue – 'Apple: The First 50 Years'
  • MacBook Neo
  • Logitech MX Master 4
  • AirPods Pro 3
  • AirTag (2nd Generation) – 4 Pack
  • Apple Watch Series 11
  • Wireless CarPlay adapter