Apple told the court that it was complying with part of the injunction it received after the Epic Games app store trial because the company tried to delay the execution of other content of the ruling.After U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers ruled on the Epic-Apple lawsuit in September, Apple filed an appeal in early October and requested a moratorium on the injunction.
In a new document submitted to the court, Apple stated that it has completed some of the work required by the court, but still hopes that the rest will be shelved.
These changes include updating the anti-substitution clause in its developer guide, which is mainly defined to provide more flexibility in contacting users and promoting alternative payment methods to users. However, Apple has not changed the rules related to metadata buttons for external links or external payment mechanisms. Friday’s court documents mentioned that Apple has complied with part of the ban, and reiterated that it has appealed to suspend the rest of the ban. According to Apple, “immediate enforcement of this ban will undermine the integrity of the iOS ecosystem.”
Apple estimates that since the court believes that Apple’s requirement to allow users to use in-app purchases to sell digital content is allowed, the removal of in-app restrictions will “force Apple to provide its intellectual property free of charge, and reduce the security and privacy given to customers.” . Apple further claimed that Epic Games does not have any qualifications to ensure the enforcement of the ban because it does not have a developer account and currently has no products in the App Store.
In theory, due to the lack of accounts, the suspension will not cause harm to Epic. Apple believes that the suspension of the rest of the ban should be in the public interest. What Apple has done with its developer rules shows that “the company is working in good faith to improve consumer access to information in a way that maintains the integrity of the ecosystem.”
If the court is unwilling to approve a full suspension, Apple insists that a temporary suspension should be used instead, at least during the Ninth Circuit’s hearing of Apple’s appeal.
On October 23, Epic opposed Apple’s previous appeal, saying that such a suspension should not be allowed because Apple did not meet legal standards and could not prove that it faced irreparable harm in complying with the regulations. Epic’s claims include Apple’s comments after the trial that the ruling was positive and Apple’s delayed request to suspend the injunction.
On November 9th the court will hold a hearing to discuss Apple’s appeal and other matters. The company will enforce all the bans before December 9.
