Today, Apple filed an opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in their ongoing legal battle with Epic Games. Both Apple and Epic Games decided to appeal the original ruling in the case. Changes to the App Store are on hold pending the outcome of the appeal.
Apple submitted its latest filing to the appeals court this afternoon. In the brief, Apple argued that the case was lost because of the accusations of anticompetitive conduct and not because of legal error. Apple quotes several passages from the initial ruling.
Epic built its case on witnesses who "lack[ed] credibility" and were "unreliable," whose testimony was "wholly lacking in an evidentiary basis," and who were "willing to stretch the truth in support of [Epic's] desired outcome." At trial, its theories were revealed to be "artificial," "misconceived," and "litigation driven." At every turn, Epic "failed to demonstrate," "failed to convince," "failed to produce," "failed to present," "failed to show," "failed to persuade," and "failed to prove" the facts of its case.
Apple says that the appeal is being used to change the narrative because the district court ruled in favor of the company. Apple doesn't believe that the first court's findings will ever be proven to be incorrect, so it needs to prove that to win its appeal.
There is no basis for the initial ruling to be overturned on appeal, according to Apple. The developer account of Epic Games has been terminated by Apple, which means that the developer doesn't have standing to argue about the App Store.
Epic had the burden to prove, among other things, that the challenged limitations were unreasonable restraints of trade under a framework the parties agreed on before trial began. After a 16-day bench trial, the district court found that Epic had failed to carry its burden of proof on every one of its antitrust claims. That should not surprise: Throughout the history of the App Store, it is undisputed that prices have only gone down, while output has exploded. Those are the hallmarks of competition, not monopolization. To reverse, this Court would have to depart from settled law and ignore the district court's detailed findings of fact.
Several state attorneys general joined together to file an amicus brief in support of, and Apple claims that this was done to make it easier for them to win antitrust lawsuits.
The judge ordered Apple to allow developers to link to outside payment methods after determining that the anti-steering provisions were unfair. Apple claims that the initial court made an error in their ruling.
Apple writes that the injunction cannot stand. The appeals court has upheld the California law that says the rules of the App Store are not unfair because they were not found to be anticompetitive. The district court does not have the power to issue such an injunction according to Apple.
The injunction exceeds the district court’s authority. Epic failed to prove irreparable injury to itself. Moreover, this is not a class action, and any injunctive relief must be limited to Epic as a matter of both state and federal law.
Apple says that its own cross-appeal focuses on legal issues, not the other way around, which is why it is asking the court to second guess factual findings from the original trial and change the law. Scribd has a full opening brief from Apple.
In the near future, amicus briefs in support of Apple will be submitted. The court will set a date to hear arguments after Apple and Epic submit additional briefs. Apple expects a decision to be made by the summer of 2023.
Apple made it clear that it has no intention of reinstating the developer account until the legal battle has been resolved.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
