Epic Games just convinced the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reverse a prior decision that temporarily paused enforcement of a ruling requiring Apple to loosen certain App Store rules while it sought Supreme Court review. Here are the details.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Apple’s motion to stay a recent ruling requiring it to loosen certain App Store rules related to alternative payment methods.
Following the court’s decision, Epic filed two motions. The first claimed that Epic didn’t have the appropriate amount of time to prepare a rebuff to Apple’s request for a stay, while the second asked the court to reject Apple’s original request for a stay.
At the time, Epic said that Apple’s motion to stay was “another delay tactic to prevent the court from establishing significant and permanent bounds on Apple’s ability to charge junk fees on third-party payments.”
This prompted Apple to file a response, arguing that there was no reason to revisit the stay and that keeping it in place would avoid unnecessary lower-court proceedings while it seeks Supreme Court review.
Epic, in turn, filed a reply saying that Apple hadn’t shown any real need for the stay, and adding that a Supreme Court appeal wouldn’t eliminate the need for further proceedings in the lower court so that both processes could move forward at the same time.
Which brings us to today.
Earlier tonight, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Epic’s motion for reconsideration, reversing its earlier decision to stay the mandate.
In its decision, the court says it was persuaded by Epic’s arguments that Apple hasn’t shown the Supreme Court is likely to take up the case or overturn the ruling, as well as Epic’s argument that “Apple has failed to show good cause to sustain our prior stay order.”
From the decision:
Apple has not demonstrated that any proceedings on remand will cause it irreparable harm if our decision is not stayed. Instead, Apple argues that remand proceedings on the question of commission would be “premature.” Even if the Supreme Court agrees with Apple’s arguments, there would still be further proceedings on remand, particularly on the question of commission, and those proceedings are likely to look similar, if not the same, regardless of certiorari.
Accordingly, we conclude that Apple has failed to meet the requirements pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d).
The document explains that “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d) requires that a party seeking to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for certiorari ‘must show that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay.’”
You can read the full document below:
Following the decision, Epic Games took to X to claim that “Apple charging junk fees on purchases that are made outside the app store hurts consumers and developers and violates the law.” Epic Games’ CEO Tim Sweeney added:
Apple’s delaying tactics have come to an end! Now Epic v Apple returns to Judge Gonzales Rogers for hearings on exactly what fees Apple can charge to recoup costs of reviewing apps using competing payment methods. https://t.co/eukYzpu0dY
— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 29, 2026
We have reached out to Apple for comment and will update this post if we hear back.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。