Court Rejects Apple's Emergency Motion to Pause App Store Rule Changes

[MacRumors]

Apple will not be able to walk back the anti-steering App Store changes it was ordered to implement in May while the legal process plays out, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said today. That means Epic Games, Spotify, Patreon, and others will be able to continue to direct customers to web purchase options that are available outside of the App Store, and Apple won't be able to collect fees on those web purchases.

Shortly after being forced to update its U.S. App Store rules to support external purchase links, Apple filed an emergency motion with the appeals court. Apple wanted to be able to hold off on implementing the new rules until it was able to mount a full appeal, but the appeals court denied the motion.

To be granted a stay, Apple needed to prove that its appeal is likely to succeed and that it would be irreparably injured without a stay, while the court also needed to consider whether the stay would injure other parties and where public interest lies. The court said that after "reviewing the relevant factors" it has not been persuaded that a stay is appropriate.

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property. Apple said that it should be able to collect commission on external purchase links and control the way those links look, both of which are currently prohibited. Apple claimed that keeping the App Store rules as is will cost it "hundreds of millions to billions" of dollars annually.

The App Store changes that Apple implemented in the U.S. are a result of the ongoing Apple vs. Epic Games legal battle that started in 2020. The judge overseeing the case originally ordered Apple to tweak the App Store rules to allow developers to direct customers to web purchase options instead of using in-app purchases. Apple complied after a multi-year appeals process, but levied 12 to 27 percent fees on developers who opted to do so and implemented strict rules around link styling.

Epic Games protested Apple's implementation, and the judge sided with Epic. In a scathing ruling, Apple was ordered to immediately change its U.S. App Store rules. As of now, Apple is not allowed to charge any fee on purchases that consumers make outside of an app, nor is it allowed to restrict the language or design that developers use for buttons or links to web purchase options.

Article Link: Court Rejects Apple's Emergency Motion to Pause App Store Rule Changes

 

[germanbeer007]

Imagine still advocating for typing in your credit card numbers into unknown vendors just so that greedy Epic games can get the extra 30%

 

[AlexStudios]

…Well this is a shocker.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Epic is a company that does nothing but addict kids to a game to get the credit card of the parents. A truly disgusting excuse for a company. Kids, kids, kids. Epic wants them.

 

[User 6502]

Of course they did. Apple is rotten and they are defending the indefensible

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property

Prohibitions or on communicating with customers are not intellectual property.
They are junk fees.

Also, providing access to the Apple App Store is not free. Epic, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify - they all pay their yearly membership. If that - and the hardware sales - are not enough, Apple is free to price their App Store in a fair, non-discriminatory and not-anticompetitive way.

Imagine still advocating for typing in your credit card numbers into unknown vendors

I've made countless credit card transactions online just fine.
With vendors I trust. Why would I use an app from someone I don't trust anyway?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Epic is a company that does nothing but addict kids to a game to get the credit card of the parents

...and Apple want's to keep that "addicting" business to themselves. So what?

Besides, V-Bucks do not require a credit card - they can be purchases as prepaid gift cards.

 

[sw1tcher]

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property. Apple said that it should be able to collect commission on external purchase links and control the way those links look, both of which are currently prohibited. Apple claimed that keeping the App Store rules as is will cost it "hundreds of millions to billions" of dollars annually.

What a load of 💩

Let's take Spotify as an example. Before Apple allowed external purchase links, you could only subscribe to Spotify through their website. Apple collected $0.00 and Apple was perfectly okay with this arrangement. No complaints from Apple about having to give away their products and services either.

Now that there are external purchase links on the Spotify app, Apple says not only will this cost them millions of dollars annually but it's also forcing Apple to give away their products and services too?

I didn't know external purchase links were capable of inflicting this much harm.

 

[flexwithmarius]

Imagine still advocating for typing in your credit card numbers into unknown vendors just so that greedy Epic games can get the extra 30%

bUt CoNsUmEr ChOiCe!! 🤡

 

[jz0309]

wonder what the next legal step here is for Apple...

 

[AppliedMicro]

Let's take Spotify as an example. Before Apple allowed external purchase links, you could only subscribe to Spotify through their website. Apple collected $0.00 and Apple was perfectly okay with this. No complaints about Apple having to give away their products and services either.

Also, let's take Uber as example.

Apple provides them access to the App Store access and (afaik) their push notification service. And they're perfectly ok with charging only the yearly developer membership. And with allowing Uber to ask for credit card details in-app, conducting in-app transactions without Apple's involvement or commission.

 

[flexwithmarius]

What a load of 💩

Let's take Spotify as an example. Before Apple allowed external purchase links, you could only subscribe to Spotify through their website. Apple collected $0.00 and Apple was perfectly okay with this arrangement. No complaints from Apple about having to give away their products and services either.

Now that there are external purchase links on the Spotify app, Apple says not only will this cost them millions of dollars annually but it's also forcing Apple to give away their products and services too?

This was under the old hush-hush rule where you could offer your services elsewhere but you couldn’t speak of it within your app.

The thing that has Apple worried is that developers will choose to offer their services only thru third party stores and forget about IAP all together.

 

[jz0309]

Prohibitions or on communicating with customers are not intellectual property.
They are junk fees.

Also, providing access to the Apple App Store is not free. Epic, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify - they all pay their yearly membership. If that - and the hardware sales - are not enough, Apple is free to price their App Store in a fair, non-discriminatory and not-anticompetitive way.

yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.

 

[xander49x]

I do not use any of the service above never will, the company behind them are opportunistic and without a moral compass.

 

[d686546s]

I would assume that Apple isn't, in fact, prohibited from charging for use of its intellectual property, it's just prevented from doing so in the way it prefers, ie by putting a commission on purchases and subscriptions made not through its payment systems.

 

[cateye]

yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.

Apple is free to raise that fee if it so wishes. Or, if it finds the financial or procedural burden of operating the App Store so difficult, to get out of that business altogether and leave it to faster moving, less control-obsessive companies to compete on merit.

Which they won't, of course, because it has nothing to do with fairness or the cost of running the store. It's usurious profit they are not entitled to and they knew it. They're just trying to keep their talons into that largess on a day-by-day basis this point.

 

[AppliedMicro]

wonder what the next legal step here is for Apple...

Withdraw their appeals and "emergency motions" and comply with the court's order? 🤷‍♂️


Nah, just kidding. 🤡
Apple would never, ever just comply with laws and court orders in that regard.
Until real pain is inflicted upon by them courts of laws and regulators.

👉 So bring on the pain. More pain! 💪

I can't wait for the next court of law to shut them down. 🥳👯‍♂️
And the next round of fines imposed on them by the European Union. Make the fines rain! 💸💸

yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.

How much have Uber, Doordash and Booking.com been paying?
While conducting in-app payment transactions without paying commission?

Why is the purchases of a physical CD or book free from Apple's commissions - but an music download or eBook supposed to cost 30% commission?

 

[flexwithmarius]

I think Apple has quietly built a solution to external subscriptions. I suspect this year’s WWDC will have plenty of sessions on Apple’s plans to deal with business on the App Store moving forward.

 

[cateye]

I do not use any of the service above never will, the company behind them are opportunistic and without a moral compass.

Corporations by definition are amoral, including Apple. Your argument is nonsensical.

 

[d686546s]

yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.

What difference does it make when Apple hosts Amazon and Facebook for free?

 

[sw1tcher]

yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.

Amazon, Starbucks, Walmart, McDonald's, Uber, Netflix, et al all put their apps on Apple's App Store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/yr. No complaints from Apple.

 

[cateye]

I think Apple has quietly built a solution to external subscriptions. I suspect this year’s WWDC will have plenty of sessions on Apple’s plans to deal with business on the App Store moving forward.

That is for Apple Pay purchases, not App Store purchases. Two entirely different things. Apple takes a cut of every Apple Pay purchase as well, but it's a fraction of a penny. Which, I'll note, is one of the reasons why more states are now allowing businesses to pass along CC and CC purchase clearing house fees direct to the consumer and discount purchases made with cash or other non-credit methods.

 

[Chungry]

Also, let's take Uber as example.

Apple provides them access to the App Store access and (afaik) their push notification service. And they're perfectly ok with charging only the yearly developer membership. And with allowing Uber to ask for credit card details in-app, conducting in-app transactions without Apple's involvement or commission.

Inconsistency is Apple's downfall. But. If everything stays as it is now with the changes guess what? Majority of ppl will still use the iAP. It's not gonna change a thing, it might even net them some more money.

 

[Chungry]

yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.

If that's not enough, if it needs to be changed that's on Apple. They created this whole mess. Charge certain folks more I say. But you can't be angry at Epic, Uber etc because Apple was lazy and didn't charge them more.

 

[sleeptodream]

Of course they did. Apple is rotten and they are defending the indefensible

Then Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and everyone else with an online store needs to get rid of their fees or offer third party payment options for software purchases too, right?