Appeals Court Granted a Stay on Part of Epic v. Apple Ruling

An appeals court has paused one of the most consequential parts of the Epic v. Apple ruling, placing a stay on the enforcement of the injunction issued by the lower court, The Verge reported. According to The Verge, the stay allows Apple to maintain its IAP system as the sole source of in-app payments on iOS, despite the district court’s earlier ruling that the exclusive arrangement is illegal.

The Verge embedded a copy of the ruling into their article. From the ruling:

…Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court’s determination that Epic Games, Inc., failed to show Apple’s conduct violated any antitrust laws but did not show that the same conduct violated California’s Unfair Competition Law… Apple has also made a sufficient showing irreparable harm, … and that the remaining factors weigh in favor of staying part.. of the injunction and maintaining the status quo pending appeal.

The Court wrote: “Therefore we grant Apple’s motion to stay part(i) of paragraph (1) of the permanent injunction. The stay will remain in effect until the mandate issues in this appeal. The existing briefing schedule remains in place.”

The New York Times reported: “If the appeals court had not ruled, Apple on Thursday would have had to start allowing companies to include links within their apps directing customers to outside websites where they can pay for those companies’ services or subscriptions. That would have prevented Apple from taking a cut of up to 30 percent on those transactions.”

The New York Times also reported: “In a brief document, three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that Apple could wait to make any changes until the appeals process for the Epic lawsuit concluded, which could take more than a year.”

Given this information, it appears that the Epic v. Apple case could continue to drag on through the courts an indeterminate amount of time. The outcome of the case could change is it works its way through the courts.