News US Supreme Court snubs Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle

[Semi Lazy Gamer]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-epic-games-legal-battle-with-apple-2024-01-16/

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a challenge by Apple to a lower court's decision requiring changes to certain rules in its lucrative App Store, as the justices shunned the lengthy legal battle between the iPhone maker and Epic Games, maker of the popular video game "Fortnite."

The justices also turned away Epic's appeal of the lower court's ruling that Apple's App Store policies limiting how software is distributed and paid for do not violate federal antitrust laws. The justices gave no reasons for their decision to deny the appeals.

 

[Brofield]

I think the legal jargon is going over my head. Pretty much they both lost? I genuinely have no idea what this outcome could mean unless it simply maintains the status quo of walled gardens for Apple/Google/Nintendo/Sony/MS/Steam

 

[em]

This was pretty much the best outcome, IMO. The original ruling -- Apple doesn't have to allow 3rd party app stores, sideloading, or reinstate Epic, but must permit developers to link to alternative (web) payments/subscriptions -- was a good one.

Edit: Welp, Apple's made the changes to its developer policies and it's still charging regular commission (27% vs 30% and 12% vs 15%, only enough of a savings to cover CC processing fees) on clicked-through web payments. If this part stands, nothing actually changes.

 

[oldpuck]

I think the legal jargon is going over my head. Pretty much they both lost? I genuinely have no idea what this outcome could mean unless it simply maintains the status quo of walled gardens for Apple/Google/Nintendo/Sony/MS/Steam

Supreme court declining to hear the case means the lower court rulings stand, and there is no more courts to appeal to, so they are now The Law Of The Land. There two rulings in question.

Lower courts found with Apple that they can be as restrictive as they want in their store. This is what Epic was appealing under anti-trust.

But those same courts said that Apple couldn't restrict behavior of their apps after downloading. So if Epic wants to sell you a cosmetic in Fortnite, Epic can link you to the Epic store for you to buy it, and make it available on your iPad. That means Apple can't guarantee that they skim off the top of all microtransactions, or prevent apps from saying "hey, this game is cheaper on Steam."

The walled garden has a hole in it.

 

[Scrawnton]

Supreme court declining to hear the case means the lower court rulings stand, and there is no more courts to appeal to, so they are now The Law Of The Land. There two rulings in question.

Lower courts found with Apple that they can be as restrictive as they want in their store. This is what Epic was appealing under anti-trust.

But those same courts said that Apple couldn't restrict behavior of their apps after downloading. So if Epic wants to sell you a cosmetic in Fortnite, Epic can link you to the Epic store for you to buy it, and make it available on your iPad. That means Apple can't guarantee that they skim off the top of all microtransactions, or prevent apps from saying "hey, this game is cheaper on Steam."

The walled garden has a hole in it.

I wonder if this sets legal precedent for companies to not pay Sony their "cross play tax". This could have huge ramifications on Sony considering "Gachastation" is becoming a meme and Sony makes so much money scraping their 30% off the top of each transaction.

 

[Brofield]

@em @oldpuck appreciate the clarification! That does make a lot of sense, and also yeah probably sounds like the most ideal situation.

I wonder if this would also put a knot in Steam's policy about not letting developers talk about their games if they're being sold on other platforms

 

[oldpuck]

I personally think side-loaded stores should be Ok, but that Apple obviously has the right to regulate what goes into their store. There is a tricky line between "this is spyware, of course it should go out" and "this company's anti-LGBTQ values go against our own, and we believe we should be able to exclude this app" and "they're a competitor, we want their money". But I think the court probably erred in the right direction here, overall.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

How many people are even buying V-Bucks and equivalent through the publisher’s store instead of using whatever platform they’re playing on? Feels like the portion of players circumventing the platform holder’s standard store should be marginal but I might be wrong.

 

[em]

How many people are even buying V-Bucks and equivalent through the publisher’s store instead of using whatever platform they’re playing on? Feels like the portion of players circumventing the platform holder’s standard store should be marginal but I might be wrong.

The argument could be made that it's marginal because linking to the web store in-game has been prohibited until now. We'll see how things play out as a result of this ruling in the future.

 

[Mer.Saloon]

I interpret this to be a fairly ambiguous ruling that pisses them both off in different ways. Apple can still find ways to screw Epic prior to download, but Epic now has avenues after download.

If neither side of this multi-billion pissing match is fully happy, then I'm happy.

 

[Previously on Lost]

I just find it crazy that an argument over essentially selling horse armor in a f2p game almost reached the highest court.

 

[chocolate_supra]

I just find it crazy that an argument over essentially selling horse armor in a f2p game almost reached the highest court.

And the highest court was like "does this give us a chance to remove more human rights from the USA? It doesn't? Okay then we don't wanna hear it"

 

[Krvavi Abadas]

for reference, the ruling means Apple is no longer required to allow alternate app stores in the US. but it’s still legally mandated in Europe.

Gurman explained that Apple is gearing up to make changes to the ‌App Store‌ in the EU to comply with the region's impending Digital Markets Act (DMA). Apple is apparently planning to roll out adjustments to comply with the new legal requirements in the coming weeks, including splitting off the ‌App Store‌ in the EU from the rest of the world. The deadline for Apple to comply with the DMA is March 7, so the company has just over seven weeks to enact the changes.

Incredibly frustrating to deal with, considering the one thing Apple was trying to avoid (developers being allowed to use external payment processors instead of Apple’s own) went through anyways.
so everyone using an iOS device in the USA is losing out on a very useful feature.

 

[merp]

Roberts Court b-b-based?!?!?!!?!

Spoiler: Spoiler

I kid.

This is as good as we're going to get from them.

 

[EnergyDrink]

The problem is Apple can just not show apps in their front store pages or search lists that circumvent purchases via Apple.

Not a problem for Fortnite or Netflix & co, people will find these apps anyway, but for smaller developers it would practically mean their game is dead. So not many will even try to circumvent Apples fee.

 

[Krvavi Abadas]

for reference, the ruling means Apple is no longer required to allow alternate app stores in the US. but it’s still legally mandated in Europe.

the roll out for this has proven to be just as annoying as it sounds, with it using a verification system that periodically checks if you're in the region.
if it detects you moved elsewhere, they disable all 3rd-party app stores and no longer allow you to update any apps you previously downloaded from them.

also Apple tried to ban Epic's developer account (preventing them from making their own store) again, but relented when the European Commission threatened to restart their legal battle with Apple.

 

[thoughthaver]

they forgot to bribe thomas with v-bucks smh

 

[Barely Able]

Maybe the court should push shit like this back on the docket so they can decide if a certain ex-president can be held liable for crimes while in office instead of delaying as much as possible.