Judge dismisses Apple appeal in Epic case as time-wasting
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said Apple was really seeking "an injunction that would take years"
A US judge has ordered Apple to comply with a court's decision over in-app payments in the ongoing Epic Games case, denying the company's efforts to pause orders.
The decision comes a month after Apple filed a notice of appeal, requesting the judge to delay changes to App Store payments that would take effect starting in December.
"Apple's motion is based on a selective reading of this Court's findings and ignores all of the findings which supported the injunction," the new order by Epic v. Apple judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers reads.
She told the representatives of Apple that the company was actually not asking for "additional time" but was seeking "an injunction which would effectively take years".
Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had to comply with the order to allow developers to add links and buttons to non-App Store payment options by 9th December.
During the hearing, Apple attorney Mark Perry argued that the company needed more time to rewrite its anti-steering policies regarding restrictions on in-app purchases.
"This will be the first time Apple has ever allowed live links in an app for digital content. It's going to take months to figure out the engineering, economic, business, and other issues," Perry said.
"It is exceedingly complicated. There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers, to protect Apple. And they have to be written into guidelines that can be explained and enforced and applied."
Commenting on the ruling, Epic attorney Gary Bornstein said that "Apple does nothing unless it is forced to do it."
Fortnite maker Epic Games filed an antitrust suit against Apple in a federal court in California last year, over the company's practice of forcing app developers to use its own in-app payment system, paying commissions to the iPhone maker.
Epic claimed that Apple's rules around payments are illegal because they shut out potential rivals. It also complained that the approach is too restrictive, and that competing technologies should be allowed on Apple's iPhones.
Apple defended its 'walled garden' approach, arguing that it protects iPhone users from privacy and security threats. Allowing users to sideload (download apps from outside the App Store) would simply open the doors for scammers and malware, it said.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued a ruling in September that was mostly favourable to Apple. However, she ordered the company to allow in-app links, buttons and messages to users about other payment options.
Last month, Apple updated its App Store rules to address developers' abilities to communicate with their users. Apple now allows developers to use messaging like email to share alternative methods of payments outside of their iOS app, provided users consent to receive them and have the right to opt out. Moreover, developers are not required to pay Apple a cut on purchases that take place outside of their app or the App Store.
Following Gonzalez Rogers' refusal to grant the injunction, Apple is planning to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for a stay.
An Apple spokesperson told Reuters that the company believes no further business changes should be required to take effect until all appeals in this case are resolved.
"We intend to ask the Ninth Circuit for a stay based on these circumstances."