[ad_1]
With potentially billions of dollars and some control over the App Store in play, Apple has filed an appeal against the ruling in its grand lawsuit against Epic. While Apple largely won this case (the company went so far as to call the decision a “resounding victory”) with Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruling in favor of Apple in nine of the ten claims that Epic has filed against the company , she lost in an important case. way: The judge found that Apple had violated California’s anti-leadership rules and demanded that Apple let developers connect to external payment systems. This policy would have taken over in December, but it could be pushed beyond – and it seems that is the point.
As part of the appeal, Apple is asking for a stay to prevent the company from having to implement the new anti-leadership rules, arguing that it “will allow Apple to protect consumers and safeguard its platform for a while. that the company is working through the complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological and economic issues. And the company’s arguments there are quite revealing if we read the document carefully.
For example, Apple says the new anti-leadership rule is unnecessary because the company had previously agreed to remove the offending section from its App Store guidelines in the Cameron vs. Apple regulation, but this is news for us: at the time, Apple only agreed to “clarify” that application developers were allowed to communicate with consenting customers, and not to connect to external payment systems. . This clarification was widely viewed by developers as a red herring. At the time, Apple had not said anything about completely removing a section of its App Store guidelines.
It also appears that Apple is really worried that the court order would have force them to open the App Store to other payment mechanisms, despite what some Apple experts have claimed. A button can actually be a button:
Links and buttons to other payment mechanisms are risky. Users who click on an in-app payment link, especially the one distributed through the organized App Store, will expect to be directed to a webpage where they can securely provide their payment information, email address, and email address. -mail or other personal information.
Apple goes on to say that if it were required to allow app developers to connect to external payment systems, it would not be able to protect users from fraud:
While Apple may review links in the version of the app submitted for review, there is nothing to prevent a developer from changing the endpoint of that link or changing the content of the landing webpage. Additionally, Apple currently has no way of determining whether a user who clicks an external link has actually received the products or features they paid for. Apple already receives hundreds of thousands of reports each day from users, and allowing links to external payment options would only increase that burden. Essentially, the introduction of external payment links, especially without enough time to test and assess the security implications, will lead to the same security issues that Apple is battling with using IAP more generally, which the Court recognized as legitimate and pro-competitive reasons. for the design of the App Store.
There are a number of open questions about how Apple protects App Store users – it wasn’t until last week that the company added a feature to easily report obvious App Store scams.
The company even quotes a blog post from (and The edgethe story of) Paddle, a potential rival to Apple’s in-app payments that emerged after the Epic vs. Apple decision, using it to illustrate a possible threat to consumers. Not because of its lower fees, of course, but because “contrary to Apple’s strict privacy guidelines, this developer intends to provide access to users’ email addresses.”
Other arguments are also raised, which you can read in full in the document embedded at the bottom of this article. Overall, the company claims that “rushing to implement this aspect of the injunction would upset the prudent balance between developers and customers provided by the App Store, and would irreparably harm both Apple and businesses. consumers “.
Apple also cites a previous case, Ohio vs. AmEx, as proof that transaction platforms such as the App Store can promote competition despite steering restrictions. (However, AmEx does not serve as a software market.)
It is important to note that Apple only filed an appeal; we don’t yet know if the court will grant the appeal – and stay – just yet. When the decision was originally made in September, Apple said at the time that it had not decided to appeal.
For its part, Epic announced its intention to appeal the same day Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued his order and permanent injunction against Apple. It was clear from the start that Epic wasn’t happy.
[ad_2]
Source link