Latest news with #Injunction
Business Mayor
17-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Business Mayor
Apple blocks Fortnite's return to the U.S. App Store and Epic Games Store in EU, despite ruling (updated)
Epic Games Apple has blocked Epic's submission of Fortnite to the U.S. Apple App Store and the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union. 'Now, sadly, Fortnite on iOS will be offline worldwide until Apple unblocks it,' Epic Games said in a tweet. Epic Games had hoped that it would be able to return its game, which has been off iOS since Epic sued Apple for antitrust violations in 2021. A new law in the EU is expected to force Apple to comply at some point, and a recent ruling in the U.S. federal antitrust lawsuit by Epic was expected to force Apple's hand. [Updated: 11:16 p.m. Pacific time on 5/16/25]. Epic Games said it filed a motion to enforce the judge's injunction against Apple. Epic Games aid, 'Yesterday afternoon, Apple broke its week-long silence on the status of our app review with a letter saying they will not act on the Fortnite app submission until the Ninth Circuit Court rules on the partial stay. We believe this violates the Court's Injunction and we have filed a second Motion to Enforce Injunction with the US District Court for the Northern District of California.' The company added, 'We've been transparent with Apple about our intentions while they've used app review and notarization as a pretext to circumvent the Court's injunction and the EU Digital Markets Act. Apple's 'solution' required us to submit two versions of Fortnite, in violation of their guideline that developers shouldn't submit multiple versions of the same app. That's not the standard Apple holds other developers to and it's blocking us from releasing our update in the EU and US. Apple is again retaliating against Epic for challenging the legality of their anticompetitive behavior and we will fight on.' Read More Cities: Skylines 2: release date, trailers, gameplay, and more In the new Motion, Epic said that on May 1, 2025, Epic notified Apple of its intent to avail itself of the injunction and the new guidelines. Specifically, Epic notified Apple that Epic would use the same developer account that it uses to distribute the Epic Games Store and Fortnite in the European Union to submit Fortnite for App Review in the U.S. Epic invited Apple to provide it with further direction if Apple preferred that Epic submit Fortnite for review another way (e.g., through a different developer account). On May 2, 2025, Apple—through its outside counsel— stated that if Epic wanted to submit using the process Epic had outlined, it should do so.' Epic added, 'Although Apple's contracts may permit it to reject an app for lawful reasons, the Injunction provides that Apple may no longer reject an app—including Fortnite—because its developer chooses to include an external purchase link. Likewise, if the Injunction is to have any teeth, Apple cannot reject an app on the ground that its developer has sought to enforce the Injunction's prohibitions.' And Epic said, 'The only explanation for Apple's decision to refuse to review Epic's Fortnite submission is that Apple does not want Epic to take advantage of the rights it worked so hard to obtain and instead wishes to retaliate for these efforts.' Nothing about Epic's stipulation with Apple provides Apple with any greater discretion to reject a submission from Epic or to treat Epic's submissions any differently than Apple may treat submissions from any other developer, Epic said. And importantly, Apple's contractual rights under the DPLA do not trump the Injunction; to the contrary, the whole point of the Injunction is to curb those rights, Epic said. Read More Best Nintendo Switch deals: consoles, games, and accessories Epic added, 'This court's Injunction and contempt order are clear. Apple may not reject apps because their developers wish to steer consumers to alternative payment options through links, buttons and other calls to action. Nor can Apple reject apps because their developers have attempted to enforce that right. In its Contempt Order, this Court emphasized that the purpose of the Injunction is to terminate Apple's attempts to interfere with competition and maintain an anticompetitive revenue stream. Apple's functional rejection of Fortnite—which has a purchase link side by side with IAP, consistent with the current Guidelines—is simply more interference with competition.' We await further explanation for why Apple is still blocking Fortnite's return. We have asked Apple for comment, but it has not offered anything yet. In its legal filings with Epic, Apple said, 'The parties' recent disputes over the District Court's injunction do not diminish Apple's bases and legal right to have terminated Epic Games' DPLA. To the contrary, the District Court's recent Order reiterated Epic Games' admission 'that it breached the DPLA and [had previously] conceded that Apple would be entitled to relief if the Court found that the DPLA was enforceable and did not violate antitrust laws or public policy.'' Apple said the district court again noted that 'Apple's breach of contract claim is also premised on violations of DPLA provisions independent of the anti-steering provisions. Apple removed Fortnite from the U.S. storefront of the App Store and terminated Epic Games' developer account because of that breach.'
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Apple faces new payments lawsuit
This story was originally published on Payments Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Payments Dive newsletter. An app developer filed a lawsuit against Apple that seeks class-action status, alleging that the company's efforts to avoid complying with a federal court injunction cost developers money. The new lawsuit was filed by Pure Sweat Basketball, which offers basketball training online and through its apps. Only 34 of an estimated 136,000 app developers in Apple's App Store had applied to offer external payments via links as of May 2024, according to Pure Sweat's lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Oakland, California. Separately, Apple filed notice Monday that it will appeal U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' April 29 ruling that it violated an injunction Fortnite video game maker Epic Games secured in a legal battle over commissions the technology giant charges for app purchases. Apple previously appealed Rogers' 2021 ruling to grant the injunction. Rogers ruled last week that Apple had not complied with her 2021 injunction stemming from Epic Games' lawsuit, and had continued to seek ways to protect revenues it collects by taking a portion of app sales on its platform. Apple also schemed to dissuade app users from clicking external payment links, Rogers said. Pure Sweat alleged Apple had rejected its 2023 app until the developer removed links allowing external purchases. Given Rogers' ruling, Pure Sweat, based in Crystal Lake, Illinois, plans to modify its apps to include linked-out purchases on its own platforms and avoid Apple's fees, the lawsuit said. 'Apple's contempt is far from a victimless offense,' according to the lawsuit, which was filed in the same court where the Epic Games' litigation is occurring. 'In addition to undermining the judicial process, Apple's defiance of the Injunction has harmed Apple's developers.' The new lawsuit closely mirrors Rogers' latest ruling that described Apple's actions. The law firm representing the plaintiffs, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, estimated that 'potentially more than 100,000' app developers were unable to sell directly to customers 'and were forced to pay Apple commissions on in-app sales that Apple was not entitled to receive,' the Seattle-based law firm said Friday in a press release. 'While the Injunction was designed to encourage link-out payments, which would substantially reduce the commissions developers pay to Apple, Apple's Injunction defying scheme ensured this did not happen—not even remotely,' according to the lawsuit. The suit alleges unjust enrichment, constructive trust and tortious interference with business and seeks unspecified damages for Pure Sweat and other similar plaintiffs. Hagens Berman previously sued Apple in 2019 related to its App Store payment policies. That case resulted in a $100 million settlement the firm secured in 2021 for app developers. Recommended Reading Apple violated app payments injunction, judge rules Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A judge found that an Apple executive 'outright lied under oath' in Epic Games case
A judge on Wednesday said that Apple was not complying with a 2021 injunction in the Epic Games case. Apple ignored a court order and an executive "outright lied under oath," the judge wrote. An Apple spokesperson told Business Insider the company "strongly" disagrees with the court's decision. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in a Wednesday filing, lambasted Apple and its executives for their behavior during the Epic Games antitrust case, writing that they violated a 2021 injunction in the case. Rogers, in her order, wrote that Alex Roman, Apple's vice president of finance, "outright lied" to the court while under oath about when Apple decided to impose a 27% commission fee on transactions facilitated through its App Store. Roman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies," Rogers wrote. "They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court." The court referred the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California "to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate." The ruling stems from a case brought against Apple by the video game developer Epic Games in 2020, in which Epic Games accused Apple of engaging in anticompetitive practices related to its control over the App Store and in-app payment systems. In 2021, following a trial, the court ruled that Apple's restrictions on in-app purchasing methods outside the one offered by the App Store were indeed anticompetitive. The ruling largely favored Apple, finding that the company had engaged in anticompetitive behavior in only one of 10 counts. The Court then issued an injunction forcing Apple to allow developers to inform users about external purchasing options, but Rogers says the company refused to comply with the injunction. She wrote that "Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity," Rogers wrote in the Wednesday filing. "After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction's goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up." An Apple spokesperson told Business Insider that the company "strongly" disagrees with the court's decision. "We will comply with the court's order, and we will appeal," the spokesperson said. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
01-05-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
A judge found that an Apple executive 'outright lied under oath' in Epic Games case
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in a Wednesday filing, lambasted Apple and its executives for their behavior during the Epic Games antitrust case, writing that they violated a 2021 injunction in the case. Rogers, in her order, wrote that Alex Roman, Apple's vice president of finance, "outright lied" to the court while under oath about when Apple decided to impose a 27% commission fee on transactions facilitated through its App Store. Roman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies," Rogers wrote. "They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court." The court referred the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California "to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate." The ruling stems from a case brought against Apple by the video game developer Epic Games in 2020, in which Epic Games accused Apple of engaging in anticompetitive practices related to its control over the App Store and in-app payment systems. In 2021, following a trial, the court ruled that Apple's restrictions on in-app purchasing methods outside the one offered by the App Store were indeed anticompetitive. The ruling largely favored Apple, finding that the company had engaged in anticompetitive behavior in only one of 10 counts. The Court then issued an injunction forcing Apple to allow developers to inform users about external purchasing options, but Rogers says the company refused to comply with the injunction. She wrote that "Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity," Rogers wrote in the Wednesday filing. "After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction's goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up." An Apple spokesperson told Business Insider that the company "strongly" disagrees with the court's decision. "We will comply with the court's order, and we will appeal," the spokesperson said.
