Yazılar

Apple Loses Appeal to Delay App Store Antitrust Reforms in Epic Games Case

/in /tarafından

Apple has failed in its latest attempt to delay a U.S. court order requiring changes to its App Store practices, marking a significant setback in its long-running legal battle with Epic Games. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected Apple’s request to pause enforcement of parts of the federal judge’s injunction while it pursues further appeals.

The case stems from Epic Games’ 2020 lawsuit challenging Apple’s control over its iOS App Store and in-app payment system. Epic argued that Apple’s policies stifle competition and allow it to collect excessive fees from app developers.

Court Orders Apple to Open App Store to More Competition

In April, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt of her previous injunction and ordered the company to immediately cease several business practices that restricted developers’ ability to direct users to alternative payment options. Among the practices targeted was Apple’s introduction of a 27% fee on developers who facilitate payments outside of the App Store—a fee the judge said was an attempt to sidestep the original injunction.

Additionally, the court barred Apple from restricting where app developers can place links or buttons that lead users to external purchasing platforms.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney celebrated the appeals court decision on social media, stating that the “long national nightmare of the Apple tax is ended.”

Apple Argues for Business Control, Epic Sees New Competition

In its emergency appeal, Apple argued that the ruling strips it of control over “core aspects of its business operations” and unfairly compels the company to give developers free access to its platform services. Apple also expressed disappointment at the appeals court decision but vowed to continue its legal battle.

Epic Games countered that Apple’s actions were aimed at preserving its dominance and maintaining revenue streams that the court had ruled were anti-competitive. Epic claimed that since the injunction was issued, many developers have already introduced better payment systems, improved deals, and expanded choices for consumers, increasing genuine competition on iOS.

Ongoing Legal Risks for Apple

This latest ruling leaves Apple exposed to continued legal and regulatory scrutiny. Judge Gonzalez Rogers previously accused Apple of misleading the court about its compliance efforts and referred both Apple and one of its executives to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt charges.

While Apple won most aspects of the original lawsuit in 2021, Gonzalez Rogers did rule that the company must allow developers to inform users about alternative payment options outside of Apple’s in-app purchase system.

The outcome of Apple’s ongoing appeal will likely have significant implications for the future of digital marketplaces and the company’s multibillion-dollar App Store revenue.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines Meta’s Bid to Avoid Advertisers’ Lawsuit

/in /tarafından

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to block a class-action lawsuit by advertisers accusing the company of inflating audience metrics and overcharging for advertisements.

The decision upholds a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which allowed advertisers to pursue damages collectively for Meta’s alleged misrepresentation of the “potential reach” of its ads. The class-action lawsuit, led by former Meta advertisers DZ Reserve and Cain Maxwell, claims that Meta exaggerated its ad viewership metrics by as much as 400% by focusing on the number of social media accounts rather than the actual number of individuals.

Legal Background

The appeals court’s 2-1 decision in March 2024 ruled that the advertisers could proceed as a group, arguing that their claims stemmed from a “common course of conduct” by Meta. This approach allows potentially millions of advertisers who paid for ads on Facebook and Instagram since August 15, 2014, to collectively seek damages, which they estimate could exceed $7 billion.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, Meta challenged the lower court’s reliance on the “common course of conduct” test, arguing that other federal appeals courts have rejected this standard. Meta also contended that not all advertisers would have found the alleged misrepresentation significant or relied on it when purchasing ads.

Financial and Legal Implications

Advertising remains the cornerstone of Meta’s revenue, accounting for $116.1 billion in the first nine months of 2024. A decision in favor of the plaintiffs could result in substantial financial penalties for the tech giant and set a precedent for future class-action lawsuits involving advertising metrics.

Class actions are often favored by plaintiffs in cases involving widespread claims, as they can lead to larger recoveries at lower costs compared to individual lawsuits.

The lawsuit highlights increasing scrutiny of tech companies’ advertising practices and the metrics used to evaluate the effectiveness of their platforms, which are critical to advertisers’ decision-making and spending.