Apple is asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the Epic Games order

Sept. 28 (Reuters) – Apple Inc (AAPL.O) on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an order requiring changes to the rules of its App Store as a result of an antitrust case brought by Fortnite owner Epic Games.

The iPhone maker has been locked in a legal battle with Epic since 2020, when the gaming company alleged that Apple’s requirement that developers distribute software through its App Store, where Apple charges commissions of up to 30% on in-app payments on iPhones and other devices, Violated US antitrust rules. Epic lost those claims at trial in 2021, but a US District Court judge ruled that Apple’s practice of preventing software developers from telling customers about alternative payment methods violated California’s unfair competition law.

After the ruling, a lower court judge ordered Apple to change these rules for all developers in the US App Store. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the orders, though they remain pending until the Supreme Court makes a decision or declines to hear the case.

Apple said on Thursday that the lower court’s orders violate the US Constitution because they exceed the powers of a federal judge. Apple argued that the trial judge relied on a case brought by a single developer — rather than a broader class of developers — to justify the nationwide ban, without proving that the nationwide ban was necessary to address the harm to Epic.

“This approach removes constitutional limits on the power of federal courts and, unless corrected by this Court, will make global injunctions the default remedy in single-plaintiff cases challenging a generally applicable policy,” Apple wrote in its filing with the US Supreme Court.

Epic on Wednesday also appealed the lower court rulings in Apple’s case. The Supreme Court is likely to decide either late this year or early next year whether to hear the case.

(This story has been corrected to say that Epic claimed that Apple’s software distribution rules violate antitrust laws, not that its commissions violate the laws, in paragraph 2)

Our standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.