Amazon co-founder MacKenzie Scott has donated over $19 billion to charity in just five years
Diamond batteries powered by nuclear waste promise 28,000 years of clean energy
A Controversial Ruling
In its forty-two-page filing, Apple boldly describes the new injunction as overly broad
, flawed
and indefensible
. According to the company, Judge Rogers exceeded her authority by significantly expanding the scope of the initial 2021 decision.
To recap, the latest ruling prevents Apple from collecting any commission on purchases made outside of the App Store through external links, which Apple views as an indefinite financial penalty and, consequently, a violation of its rights to be compensated for the use of its protected technologies.
The firm argues that this “zero commission” rule is the most extreme aspect
of the injunction, claiming it is detached from Epic’s arguments
and even punitive and unconstitutional
.
Defense Strategies
To support its request, Apple cites over forty judicial decisions. However, it primarily focuses on four key arguments: the lack of justification from Epic and the disproportionate effects of the decision, the presence of additional unjustified restrictions. This judgment would be contrary to the applicable case law, and various decisions of the Supreme Court (including the case Trump v. CASA).
At the end of its brief, Cupertino therefore requests the cancellation of this last decision. Failing that, the appointment of another judge for any future proceedings, arguing that Judge Rogers can no longer ensure an impartial hearing.
NASA warns China could slow Earth’s rotation with one simple move
This dog endured 27 hours of labor and gave birth to a record-breaking number of puppies
Another Episode with Little Suspense…
This is not the first time Apple has requested the removal of Judge Rogers from the case. In June, the company had already filed a similar motion, claiming that the extension of the injunction far exceeded the original complaint by Epic.
As a reminder, the conflict dates back to 2020, when the Fortnite developer accused Apple of monopolistic practices through its App Store and its excessively high commissions. Despite several indecisive judgments, neither Apple nor Epic seems willing to back down.
The fate of this case, which has been pitting the two companies against each other for nearly five years, may now depend on a new decision by the Court of Appeals, or possibly a referral to the Supreme Court.