Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05640
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Epic Games v. Apple: Judge Rogers denied Apple’s motion to pause part of the injunction pending appeal and denied its requested ten-day extension.
Apple Inc., Epic Games, Inc., app developers, and consumers affected by the injunction’s rules on communicating and linking to external purchasing options.
What happened
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. concerned Apple’s request to pause part of an earlier injunction while appeals were pending. The covered provision bars Apple from prohibiting developers from including links or other prompts directing customers to purchasing options outside Apple’s in-app system.
The court found that Apple had not shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal, serious harm that could not be repaired later, harm to others, or that pausing the injunction would serve the public interest. The court relied on its earlier findings about Apple’s anticompetitive policies, high commissions, and effects on competition. It also rejected Apple’s request for more time to comply, except for the requested ten days.
Judge Rogers denied Apple’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal and separately denied Apple’s request for a temporary additional ten-day stay. The order terminated docket number 821.
The detailed version
- Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. · No. 4:20-cv-05640
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 9, 2021
Background
The court had previously entered an injunction concerning Apple’s antisteering rules. The portion at issue barred Apple from prohibiting developers from including external links, buttons, or other prompts in their apps that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms in addition to Apple’s in-app purchasing system. Apple moved to stay—that is, temporarily pause—that part of the injunction while all appeals were resolved. Apple also requested a temporary additional ten-day stay to file an appeal.
Analysis
The court applied a four-factor test for a stay pending appeal: whether the moving party showed a strong likelihood of success, whether it would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would injure other interested parties, and where the public interest lay. Apple had the burden of showing that a stay was appropriate.
On likelihood of success, Apple argued that the court had applied the wrong test under California’s Unfair Competition Law, that Epic lacked standing, and that the injunction exceeded the court’s authority. The court rejected those arguments, stating that it had used two tests to analyze the state-law claims and had addressed Epic’s standing. It also found that Apple was relying on cases about whether a party had standing at the beginning of a case rather than whether it later lost standing. The court concluded that Epic had shown an injury connected to Apple’s commissions and antisteering rules sufficient for constitutional standing.
The court also rejected Apple’s claim of irreparable harm. Apple argued that allowing external links could damage trust and integrity in the iPhone and iPad app system. The court found those arguments exaggerated and said that the need for additional engineering or guidelines showed, at most, that Apple might need more time to comply—not irreparable harm. Apple had not requested additional compliance time beyond the ten-day period and instead sought an open-ended stay.
Regarding harm to others and the public interest, the court found that Apple would primarily benefit from a stay. It stated that Apple could comply with the injunction while taking steps to protect users, including testing links through its app-review process. The court also said that consumer information, transparency, and choice favored allowing developers to communicate external purchasing alternatives. The court clarified that it had not barred Apple’s rule prohibiting third-party in-app purchasing systems; the injunction addressed the prohibition on communicating external alternatives and linking to them.
Disposition
The court denied Apple’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. The court also denied Apple’s request for a temporary additional ten-day stay and terminated docket number 821.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.