leftsurveys.blogg.se

This decision would have impacted Apple’s ability to set “anti-steering” rules for its App Store that today restrict developers from even pointing to other options to pay besides Apple’s own payments system.Įpic, naturally, wanted that ruling to stand, despite its continued legal battle. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the justices upheld a lower court’s judgment in favor of Epic under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Though Apple largely won its antitrust case in the lower courts, the rules around in-app payments were the one area where it lost - and why it continues to fight. If granted, Apple would have been forced to allow App Store apps the option to offer their own links or buttons to non-Apple payment systems, effectively permitting developers to circumvent Apple’s 15% to 30% commissions on purchases and subscriptions. The two tech giants have been battling over Apple’s requirement to use its in-app payments system, its commission structure, as well as its alleged monopolistic practices - something the lower courts found not to be the case.Įpic had asked that the federal appeals court’s most recent decision would stand while the case was argued at the nation’s highest court, but that request has now been denied. Apple’s current App Store rules will continue to stand, as its case with Fortnite maker Epic Games heads to the Supreme Court - meaning developers won’t be able to redirect customers to their own payment systems anytime soon.