Epic asks Supreme Court to reject Apple’s appeal

Epic asks – Epic Games has filed a bid to get Apple’s Supreme Court appeal dismissed, arguing two points raised by Apple could unravel the rest of the case. Epic says Apple misreads what the lower courts decided on the anti-steering injunction and incorrectly claims a CAS

The Apple versus Epic saga is headed back to the Supreme Court, and Epic is already asking the justices to slam the door on Apple’s latest move.

Epic Games filed a strong attempt at convincing the Supreme Court to throw the case out entirely. arguing that the two points Apple has brought to the Supreme Court could undo everything that comes after the remainder of the case. Epic’s push arrives as the company “prematurely celebrates its supposed victory. ” even as it continues fighting for the court to dismiss Apple’s arguments.

Apple’s appeal centers on two claims about how the lower courts handled the injunction. First, Apple argues the anti-steering injunction exceeds the scope of the case. Second, Apple says violations of an injunction should be judged by the “letter” of the law rather than its “spirit.”

Epic’s response is blunt: “nuh-uh.” In a filing that lays out its arguments repeatedly over 35 pages in a PDF, Epic contests both of Apple’s framing choices.

On the “spirit” versus “letter” argument, Epic puts forward a version of what the Ninth Circuit actually held. Epic states: “Contrary to Apple’s premise. the Ninth Circuit did not hold Apple in contempt on the theory that the text of the injunction allowed Apple’s commission. but the spirit of the injunction prohibited it.”.

Epic also describes how the original injunction worked in practice. It says the original injunction against Apple pertained to anti-steering practices, and that Apple dismantled those practices as requested. But Epic argues the violation was found not in anti-steering being ignored—rather. in how Apple “enabled steering through a permission structure.”.

Crucially for Epic’s argument. it says the order “mentioned nothing about how much Apple’s commission is. should be. or if it is allowed to charge one.” When Epic says Apple was violated for the newly applied commission. it insists that happened in the “spirit. ” not through some expansion beyond what was written.

Apple disputes that reading.

Epic also attacks Apple’s second theme. involving what Epic calls the “CASA exception declaration.” Epic says: “Apple’s contention that the Ninth Circuit created an exception to CASA is inexplicable. The panel held that the ‘test ‘is whether an injunction will offer complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court. ’’ quoting the very test from CASA that Apple insists applies.”.

Here, Epic frames the issue around who the injunction should have covered. Apple argues, according to Epic, that this was not a class action lawsuit, so the original injunction should have included only Epic. Epic says that position is backed by the CASA case.

Epic says Apple is wrong.

The filings leave the immediate outcome with the Supreme Court. Epic says Apple’s arguments don’t hold up; Apple says the lower courts got the injunction wrong on both scope and standards for enforcement. The only certainty is that the justices now have to decide whether Apple’s challenges can undo the remainder of the case.

A decision is expected sometime in June at the earliest.

Apple Epic Games Supreme Court appeal anti-steering injunction CASA commission Ninth Circuit spirit vs letter 35-page filing June decision