Apple strikes stronger against Epic’s lawsuit: demands the revocation of the ban and the replacement of judges – Passionategeekz

Passionategeekz June 25th news: Apple lawyers returned to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal this week after weeks of silence in Epic Games’ case against AppleA stronger counterattack. This time, Apple not only dissatisfied with the initial ruling, but also required that if the case was sent back to the district court, another judge should be retried.

According to foreign media 9to5Mac today, Apple challenged a key order previously made by the district court in its appeal document filed on Monday, which prohibited Apple from charging any commissions for in-app transactions completed outside the ecosystem.

The case timeline is well known: In 2021, Epic gets a court ban, AppleDevelopers are not prohibited from guiding users to use alternative payment methods. In April this year, the court found that Apple ignored the injunction and ruled that it “contempt of court.”

Subsequently, Federal District Court Judge Yvonn Gonzalez Rogers issued a tougher new ban. The new regulations clearly state that Apple cannot share the share from transactions completed by the unofficial payment system, nor can it limit developers in how or where to guide users to third-party payment platforms.

In the newly filed appeal, Apple said the order was beyond the scope of the original injunction and imposed penalties on it that the California Unfair Competition Act did not identify as illegal. Apple stressed that the so-called “civil contempt” should only be used to execute existing orders, and should not introduce stricter new clauses:

“The court forced Apple to give up all commissions for sales facilitated by its platform, which was neither based on the original injunction nor fair, violated the UCL, and violated the protection of property rights by the U.S. Constitution. This arrangement of permanent commission zeroing can only be understood as a punitive measure, and civil contempt is not a tool of punishment. Further restrictions on guiding behavior in the injunction are also problematic.”

Apple also responded that the practice of charging 27% commissions for external link transactions should not be simply considered “too high”. Even if there is any dispute, any commission should not be directly prohibited:

“There is a huge gap between the two, from the view that 27% is too high to the ban on commissions being drawn across the board. We understand the court’s judgment that Apple violated the original ban, but the remedies given by the court are punitive and in terms of content that are contrary to the spirit of UCL, so they should not be valid.”

Passionategeekz learned from the report that Apple filed the following five requests in this appeal:

• Revoke the new ban on commissions for external purchases;

• Remove five new restrictions related to boot (including button style, information disclosure and external link location, etc.);

• overturn the “contempt of court” ruling;

• All relevant bans were abolished based on the latest California jurisprudence (this argument has been dismissed);

• If the case is sent back, it will be handed over to the new judge.

Apple particularly emphasized that if the original judge finds it difficult to rule out the opinions he has formed after the case is retrospective, or in order to maintain the appearance of judicial justice, the court should consider reassigning candidates to hear the trial, “This case meets these two circumstances at the same time.”

Advertising statement: The external redirect links (including, not limited to, hyperlinks, QR codes, passwords, etc.) contained in the article are used to convey more information and save selection time. The results are for reference only. All articles from Passionategeekz include this statement.