Apple says Epic lawsuit shouldn't reshape App Store rules for all developers | TechCrunch

Apple petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower-court ruling in its ongoing dispute with Epic Games over App Store commissions. Apple argues that Epic’s challenge to Apple’s fee structure should not result in an injunction that applies to all U.S. App Store developers, including companies such as Microsoft and Spotify that were not part of the litigation. Apple also contests a Ninth Circuit civil contempt order tied to compliance with an injunction requiring developers be allowed to include links to alternative payment options. Apple permitted external links but charged fees on purchases made through those alternatives, which the court viewed as undermining the injunction’s purpose. Apple claims contempt cannot be imposed for violating the “spirit” of an injunction when the injunction did not explicitly address commissions.

""...Epic never brought a class action and never attempted to show that enjoining Apple's conduct against all other developers-like Microsoft or Spotify, who have nothing to do with Epic-was somehow necessary to provide relief to Epic," reads Apple's new petition, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower court ruling."

"In the same document, Apple also argues against the Ninth Circuit's civil contempt order over Apple's compliance with the injunction. The court had ruled that Apple must give developers the right to include links in their apps - links that could direct users to alternative payment options outside of Apple's own system - if they chose to do so. Apple did permit this as required, but charged fees on those outside purchases, leading to the contempt order."

"The Ninth Circuit said that charging fees of 27% on external payments defeated the purpose of allowing them - which, well, it did. But Apple is pushing back on specific legal grounds. Its new argument focuses on whether a federal court can hold a party in civil contempt for violating the "spirit" of an injunction when the injunction itself was written in a way that left room for interpretation and said nothing about commissions."

Read at TechCrunch