Apple recently faced a setback when the US Court of Appeals declined its request to delay an important part of a federal judge’s ruling, which mandates that iPhone manufacturers must soon open their app stores to increase competition.
On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit Court ruled against Apple’s plea to pause the implementation of the judge’s orders stemming from the ongoing antitrust lawsuit initiated by Epic Games, the creators of “Fortnite.”
In April, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers lifted an earlier injunction from the Epic Games case that had previously restricted certain practices.
Apple expressed its disappointment over the decision, stating it would continue to defend its position during the appeals process. The April ruling required Apple to eliminate some practices meant to prevent injunctions, including a 27% fee imposed on app developers for purchases made through apps.
The court’s ruling also prevented Apple from limiting where developers could place purchase links for transactions outside of the app environment.
Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games, reacted to the appeals court’s decision claiming that the era of the “Apple Tax” had come to an end.
In its emergency appeal, Apple argued that the ruling inhibited its ability to control crucial aspects of its business operations and mandated it to provide free access to its services.
Epic Games contended that Apple continues to find ways to avoid competition while trying to impose fees that were deemed illegal by the courts.
According to Epic, the competition for Apple has significantly intensified since the injunction was issued in April, allowing developers to enhance their apps with improved payment methods and offers for consumers.
The lawsuit against Apple was launched in 2020, targeting the company’s control over in-app transactions and the distribution of apps on its iOS platform.
While Apple largely triumphed in that case, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled in 2021 that developers should have the ability to guide consumers toward less expensive payment options outside of Apple’s system.
In April, she highlighted that Apple was resisting court orders that would impact a revenue stream worth millions. She suggested that Apple had misinterpreted the court’s directives regarding compliance and even referred the company and one of its executives to federal prosecutors for potential criminal investigation.
