VERIFIEDBy Xavier Rivera· ·1 min read
9th Circuit reverses stay on Epic-Apple ruling
The Ninth Circuit reverses its stay on a ruling requiring Apple to ease App Store rules on alternative payments. Enforcement can now proceed as Apple pursues Supreme Court review.
Source:9to5Mac
TL;DRAI · 60 sec read
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit grants Epic Games' motion for reconsideration, reversing its earlier decision to stay enforcement of a ruling that requires Apple to loosen certain App Store rules related to alternative payment methods.
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit granted Apple's motion for the stay while Apple seeks Supreme Court review. Epic filed motions claiming insufficient time to respond and urging rejection of the stay, calling it 'another delay tactic to prevent the court from establishing significant and permanent bounds on Apple’s ability to charge junk fees on third-party payments.'
Apple countered that there was no reason to revisit the stay, as it would avoid unnecessary lower-court proceedings during its Supreme Court bid. Epic replied that Apple failed to show a real need for the stay and that Supreme Court proceedings would not eliminate further lower-court actions.
The court states it was persuaded by Epic's arguments that Apple has not shown the Supreme Court is likely to take the case or overturn the ruling, and that Apple 'has failed to show good cause to sustain our prior stay order.' The decision cites Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d), noting Apple has not demonstrated irreparable harm from remand proceedings on commissions.
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit granted Apple's motion for the stay while Apple seeks Supreme Court review. Epic filed motions claiming insufficient time to respond and urging rejection of the stay, calling it 'another delay tactic to prevent the court from establishing significant and permanent bounds on Apple’s ability to charge junk fees on third-party payments.'
Apple countered that there was no reason to revisit the stay, as it would avoid unnecessary lower-court proceedings during its Supreme Court bid. Epic replied that Apple failed to show a real need for the stay and that Supreme Court proceedings would not eliminate further lower-court actions.
The court states it was persuaded by Epic's arguments that Apple has not shown the Supreme Court is likely to take the case or overturn the ruling, and that Apple 'has failed to show good cause to sustain our prior stay order.' The decision cites Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d), noting Apple has not demonstrated irreparable harm from remand proceedings on commissions.
HELP US IMPROVE
Reader-supported
The Circuitry is a passion project I've always wanted to build, and I love the work behind it.
Running it costs real money. APIs, hosting, time. To keep improving the site and growing this into something useful for everyone, those costs have to be covered.
Any contribution is appreciated. If not, no pressure. Thanks for reading.