‘Fortnite’ antisteering injunction unfair, unconstitutional

On Friday, Apple filed another response to the 9th Circuit Court’s App Store antisteering injunction, citing that it can’t stand and, at the least, must be reduced in scope to be constitutional.

Apple won 9 out of 10 rulings in an extended legal battle with Epic Games, but that last count has become a thorn in Apple’s side and bottom line. We’ve heard a lot of what Apple has had to say about the situation before, but it has spelled it out altogether in its latest filing.

Apple’s response to the 9th Circuit that we’ve seen hits all the high points that have been shared since the punitive injunction was placed against it in April. It reiterates that the new injunction unfairly increases the scope of the punishment against Apple, eliminates Apple’s right to collect commission on purchases made as a result of its platform being involved, and ignores legal precedent set by state proceedings.

Apple also points out that the birthright citizenship ruling in Trump v. CASA sets a precedent that requires injunctions to be narrow and specific. The broad application of rules in the new injunction affects every developer in the United States, and extends well beyond the initial plaintiff — Epic Games.

While the company argues that it complied with the initial order to eliminate antisteering rules and shouldn’t have faced civil contempt, it says the resulting injunction should at least be narrowed. It also reiterated that a California state court found its business practices legal and fair.

A punitive injunction

In April, Apple was told it willfully violated a 2021 injunction that wasn’t enforced until 2024. The ruling followed a complaint filed by Epic that suggested that Apple’s new system was so bad that developers had no choice but to stick with the original.

Apple requested that a stay be placed on the order, but was denied. So, since April, Apple has been forced to allow third-party apps to link to external websites for purchases and collect zero commission.

The ruling has essentially given Apple competitors like Spotify the ability to push users to the web for payment and cut Apple out entirely. So, keeping the example focused on Apple Music competitor Spotify, the most popular music streaming service in the world, is able to access Apple’s lucrative customer base free of charge.

Apple has consistently argued that this lets competitors operate rent-free on its platforms. That they get to take advantage of the distribution, promotion, and customer base that Apple has spent decades cultivating without compensating anyone involved.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers has been increasingly annoyed with Apple and its conduct throughout the ordeal, so there’s little hope of relief for Apple. However, there’s a potential trump card under Apple’s belt.

While the Masimo case is unrelated to the Epic one, and Apple’s promise of $600 billion of investments into the United States shouldn’t have any effect on these cases, there is a perception that it has. If the US President steps in, or if there’s a sudden change in how these antitrust injunctions are handled, people will no doubt assume it is because of a glass trophy sitting in the Oval Office.

Epic, Spotify, and the rest of the Coalition for App Fairness have fought for years to utilize Apple’s platforms for free. They’ve seen Apple’s success as something that should be shared, and so far, have seen little success beyond this single victory.

It is impossible to tell how the 9th Circuit will respond, but Apple’s battle is far from over. It continues to see mounting regulatory pressure from several countries around the world, including the EU, UK, Colombia, and more.