Latest news with #YvonneGonzalezRogers
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Apple cites Supreme Court's birthright ruling in fight over Epic Games injunction
Apple is hoping a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling curbing the power of federal judges to issue nationwide orders will help the technology giant win an appeal in a lawsuit requiring it to revamp its lucrative App Store. In a court filing on Tuesday, Apple told the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court's June order in a case involving birthright citizenship bolsters the iPhone maker's arguments in a high-stakes standoff with "Fortnite" game developer Epic Games. The Supreme Court limited when judges can issue so-called universal injunctions that apply broadly, and not just to the parties in a lawsuit. The justices did not rule on whether the Trump administration can legally terminate the right to citizenship for people born on U.S. soil, but the decision was a win for the administration, which had complained about individual lower courts blocking its policies nationwide. Even though the case at the high court had nothing to do with Apple, its appeal could test the scope of the justices' ruling. Apple and Epic did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Apple in its appeal is challenging a U.S. district judge's order in April that said the company must open its App Store to more competition, allowing all developers - not just Epic - more freedom to steer consumers to alternative payment options outside of an app. The appeal also challenges the judge's finding that Apple was in contempt for violating a prior injunction in the same case. Epic Games sued Apple in 2020 to loosen its control over transactions in applications that use its iOS operating system and how apps are distributed to consumers. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 said Apple must allow developers to more easily steer consumers to potentially cheaper non-Apple payment options. Apple defied that court order to maintain a revenue stream worth billions of dollars, Gonzalez Rogers ruled in April. Apple has denied any wrongdoing, and defended its compliance with the court's orders. Apple told the 9th Circuit that, after the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, judges no longer have freestanding authority to issue universal injunctions. Apple also noted that Epic pursued its lawsuit on its own, not as a class action on behalf of a larger group. Epic told the appeals court in May that Apple's App Store changes will have wide-reaching benefits for the industry and consumers. "The sky has not fallen. Instead, developers and consumers are finally beginning to see the long-awaited benefits of increased competition," Epic said. The case is Epic Games Inc v. Apple Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-2935. For Epic: Gary Bornstein and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore For Apple: Gregory Garre and Roman Martinez of Latham & Watkins Read more: Apple, Visa and Mastercard win dismissal of merchant antitrust lawsuit over payment fees Epic Games settles lawsuit against Samsung over app controls Swiss privacy tech firm Proton sues Apple in US over app store rules Apple must face consumer lawsuit over iCloud storage, US judge rules
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Apple cites U.S. Supreme Court's birthright ruling in fight over Epic Games injunction
Apple is hoping a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling curbing the power of federal judges to issue nationwide orders will help the technology giant win an appeal in a lawsuit requiring it to revamp its lucrative App Store. In a court filing on Tuesday, Apple told the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court's June order in a case involving birthright citizenship bolsters the iPhone maker's arguments in a high-stakes standoff with 'Fortnite' game developer Epic Games. The Supreme Court limited when judges can issue so-called universal injunctions that apply broadly, and not just to the parties in a lawsuit. The justices did not rule on whether the Trump administration can legally terminate the right to citizenship for people born on U.S. soil, but the decision was a win for the administration, which had complained about individual lower courts blocking its policies nationwide. Even though the case at the high court had nothing to do with Apple, its appeal could test the scope of the justices' ruling. Apple and Epic did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Apple in its appeal is challenging a U.S. district judge's order in April that said the company must open its App Store to more competition, allowing all developers — not just Epic — more freedom to steer consumers to alternative payment options outside of an app. The appeal also challenges the judge's finding that Apple was in contempt for violating a prior injunction in the same case. Epic Games sued Apple in 2020 to loosen its control over transactions in applications that use its iOS operating system and how apps are distributed to consumers. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 said Apple must allow developers to more easily steer consumers to potentially cheaper non-Apple payment options. Apple defied that court order to maintain a revenue stream worth billions of dollars, Gonzalez Rogers ruled in April. Apple has denied any wrongdoing, and defended its compliance with the court's orders. Apple told the 9th Circuit that, after the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision, judges no longer have freestanding authority to issue universal injunctions. Apple also noted that Epic pursued its lawsuit on its own, not as a class action on behalf of a larger group. Epic told the appeals court in May that Apple's App Store changes will have wide-reaching benefits for the industry and consumers. 'The sky has not fallen. Instead, developers and consumers are finally beginning to see the long-awaited benefits of increased competition,' Epic said.
The Hill
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Clicking ‘I agree' online lets data in and keeps lawyers out
Open your browser. Browse. Click. Most of us assume that if we avoid logging in or turning on special features, our activity stays private. But a federal court in California shattered that assumption last month. The case, which was brought on behalf of Chrome users, alleged that Google continued to collect personal data even when users specifically chose not to sync their Chrome browsers with a Google account, a step many reasonably believed would keep their digital footprints out of the company's hands. The court didn't question whether data collection had occurred. Instead, it focused on whether users had truly consented. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concluded that, because users encountered different privacy terms or understood them differently, they couldn't sue together as a group. Legally, that outcome fits with the established rule that class actions require a shared legal or factual thread. But when it comes to digital privacy, that tidy legal logic creates a troubling imbalance. The rule requiring everyone's privacy perceptions to line up acts as a clever maneuver that turns the messiness of how people encounter privacy policies into a shield against accountability. The entire online privacy regime hinges on the legal fiction that when we click 'I agree,' we've meaningfully understood and accepted what comes next. But users encounter these policies distractedly, rarely read them and often can't make sense of them even if they try. That disconnect is no accident. Privacy consent was never meant to truly inform users. It was designed to operationalize data collection and optimize for convenience, speed and scale. The irony emerges when users try to push back. At that point, the same system that treats a mindless click as meaningful legal consent suddenly demands forensic-level detail about what each person saw, understood and agreed to. In the Google case, the court that readily accepted the fiction of digital consent became deeply concerned with the reality of digital experiences. The very users who had been perfectly uniform when clicking 'I agree' were now too different to challenge that agreement together. This is privacy law's great bait-and-switch: We're all in it together when accepting surveillance, but on our own when seeking accountability. This leaves users in an impossible bind. When class action lawsuits fail because consent transforms back into an individualized contextual act, users can only go it alone. But that's a dead end. Individual privacy lawsuits almost never happen. The injuries they try to address are diffuse and abstract, ranging from hyper-targeted ads that feel invasive and algorithmic decisions that quietly discriminate to the unsettling sense that our lives are being watched too closely. These are harms that matter, but they're hard to convert into legal claims and harder still to translate into dollars. Class actions exist to bridge this gap. They take the scattered, often invisible harms of modern digital surveillance and turn them into something legible to courts. Class actions make it economically viable for lawyers to represent people without power, and they are just threatening enough to make companies think twice before crossing the line. This enforcement crisis reflects a deeper choice we face about how power operates in the digital age. We can continue pretending that privacy is protected by an elaborate theater of click-through agreements that nobody reads, privacy policies that nobody understands and legal fictions that fail to serve the people they claim to protect. Or we can build a privacy framework that takes context seriously, one that recognizes the structural imbalances between users and platforms, the impossibility of meaningful consent in an attention economy and the need for collective mechanisms to challenge abuses. The Google case will likely be remembered not for what it decided, but for the asymmetry it revealed in the way our legal system treats consent. Fixing that asymmetry doesn't mean extending the consent fiction further. It means moving past it entirely. Privacy protections should not hinge on whether someone clicked a box, but should reflect the realities of power, context and social expectations. If we won't commit to a framework that takes those realities seriously, then at the very least we should stop using context selectively to shield companies from accountability while leaving users exposed to harmful data practices.
Tom's Guide
07-07-2025
- Business
- Tom's Guide
Proton sues Apple to fight back against the company's 'predatory practices'
Swiss privacy advocates Proton have joined an existing class-action lawsuit against Apple. The company is challenging the US tech giant's App Store policies, which it describes as "anti-competitive." Proton operates one of the best VPNs, Proton VPN, and is a champion of online freedom, privacy, and security. Confronting Apple is not a decision Proton has taken lightly, but it believes the "action is necessary." Apple's practices are said to harm developers and consumers. Proton is a plaintiff in the case and is representing and suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated developers – all impacted by Apple's conduct. The case challenges Apple's monopolization of the markets for iOS app distribution and iOS app payment processing. Legal papers say "Apple has eliminated competition and extracted supracompetitive profits from app developers through a web of exclusionary conduct" – this means higher profits than what would be present in a competitive market. This lawsuit is seeking to restore competition to the iOS app distribution and payment processing markets. Damages for developers are also being sought for harm suffered through Apple's "illegal monopolization." Court papers were filed on 30 June 2025 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. In its blog post, Proton describes Apple as "one of the most powerful corporations in the history of capitalism." But it states the company's App Store policies are considered "anti-competitive and illegal" in numerous countries. Proton says all developers are required to pay an annual fee of $99 to be on the App Store. It says iOS apps are forced to use Apple's payment system and a 30% cut is taken by Apple from payments made through iOS apps. "Apple's monopoly control of software distribution on iOS devices presents a myriad of problems for consumers, businesses, and society as a whole," Proton said. It went on to say that "privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models." Free services – including those that pose a risk to your privacy by monetizing your data – aren't affected as they don't process payments through the App Store. Proton argues that this gives Apple "a dangerous level of control over app distribution" and allows it to "decide which apps can and cannot be distributed in different markets." Apple has historically been involved with removing a number of VPN apps from the App Store. In 2024 this was done at the request of Russian authorities, and in 2025 VPN apps were removed from the App Store in India. On April 22, Apple was fined €500m by the European Commission for breaches of European competition law. On April 30, Apple was found to have defied a court order concerning its anti-competitive conduct. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers referred the company to the US attorney for Northern District of California, with potential criminal prosecution being explored. After this ruling, Proton CEO Andy Yen said that no "Apple tax" would lead to a 30% reduction in price for Proton users. In response to the recent court ruling in the US against Apple's illegal in-app purchase monopoly, @ProtonPrivacy will finally be allowed to let iOS users purchase subscriptions outside of the app store. No Apple tax means we will lower prices for users by up to 30%.May 1, 2025 The UK, Brazil, the Netherlands, and South Korea have all taken action against Apple's anti-competitive behavior. In May, the Korean Publishers Association filed a parallel class-action lawsuit against Apple – something which sparked Proton's own urgency. Proton said its outcome, and any settlement, could "be binding on all other developers." Proton wants to end Apple's anti-competitive behavior and enact beneficial policy changes. It said: "We are seeking to permanently end anti-competitive behavior on the App Store, and we are joining this lawsuit to ensure that any future settlement enforces real changes to Apple's practices and policies to benefit all consumers, developers, and competition, and not just cosmetic changes." "Proton will donate any money we receive from the lawsuit to organizations fighting for democracy and human rights so that some portion of Apple's profits made from countries with authoritarian regimes are redirected to freedom." Proton said its primary shareholder and overseer, the non-profit Proton Foundation, will coordinate these donations. The company expects a lengthy, and "difficult" fight but its mission of creating a free, open, and privacy-focused internet, gives it no choice. Tom's Guide has approached Apple for comment but has not received a reply at the time of writing. We will update this article should we receive a response. We test and review VPN services in the context of legal recreational uses. For example: 1. Accessing a service from another country (subject to the terms and conditions of that service). 2. Protecting your online security and strengthening your online privacy when abroad. We do not support or condone the illegal or malicious use of VPN services. Consuming pirated content that is paid-for is neither endorsed nor approved by Future Publishing.
Phone Arena
25-06-2025
- Business
- Phone Arena
Apple is trying to undo this court decision — and wants a new judge too
Apple has filed a new appeal in the Epic Games case, asking the Ninth Circuit Court to toss out a recent order that blocks it from charging commissions on in-app purchases made outside its App Store system. The company argues that the ruling goes too far and punishes behavior that isn't illegal. This legal move comes after a ruling in April, when U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt. That decision claimed Apple was not following a 2021 injunction that originally forced it to allow developers to steer users to third-party payment options. In response, the judge issued a stronger order. Among other things, it banned Apple from taking any cut of purchases made through external links and added new rules on how developers can direct users to outside platforms. Apple says this updated order crosses a legal line. In its latest filing, the company claims that the court is using contempt powers to impose new restrictions that go beyond what was in the original decision. Apple also defended its 27% commission on purchases made through external links. It argued that while a court might find that rate too high, it doesn't justify removing commissions entirely. Apple said in the brief: — Apple In total, Apple is asking the appeals court to cancel the new injunction, reverse the contempt finding, and strike down five extra rules related to how developers can guide users to third-party payment systems. These include limits on button styles, template disclosures, and link placement. Apple is also requesting that if the case returns to district court, it be assigned to a new judge. The company says this would help preserve the appearance of fairness, since the current judge may have difficulty setting aside past opinions. In a statement to Law360, Apple said: — Apple Epic declined to comment on the matter at this time. Whether Apple can persuade the courts to side with them remains to be seen, but it looks like we have yet to see the conclusion of this ongoing battle. One thing is for sure, Apple is not letting up on this fight or the extra revenue it gets from in-app payments. Secure your connection now at a bargain price! We may earn a commission if you make a purchase Check Out The Offer
