A federal judge asks Apple to approve Fortnite’s submission to the US Application Store or return to court to explain the legal basis for why he has not done so.
To a new depositUS Regional Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers confirms that the court has received the latest proposal of Epic Games, where Apple requires Fortnite to distribute the App Store.
The clearly annoyed judge asks Apple to show the court the “legal power on which Apple argues that it can ignore this court’s mandate.” Gonzalez Rogers also suggests that Apple will have to return to court to explain if the situation is not treated.
“Apple is fully capable of resolving this issue without further updating or listening,” Gonzalez Rogers reminds the technological giant before adding that Apple calls the company official responsible for securing compliance with the court’s ruling.
Reading between the lines, the demand for the name of the Apple official in the new deposition suggests that Gonzalez Rogers is not above that he is not confused with the ban on the court.
This follows her previous ruling, where the judge pushed Apple to try to lead around the courts and accused the technology company of being oath.
After gaining the right to include links with external payment mechanisms in its application, Epic Games was repeated Fortnite on the US App Store. However, Apple told the toy manufacturer That he decided not to take action to submit Epic Games until the start of Apple’s rules on Apple’s pending request for partial stay of the new mandate. (In other words, Apple said it should not have approved the application until the legal process around its appeal was fully.)
The epic games on Friday made a proposal to force the court to impose the order given Apple’s ruling.
The latest legal threat follows a year of court battle for Apple Apple Apple policies, which had long denied application developers the right to be linked to external payment options without paying Apple a commission. Apple initially complied with the court ruling on the lawsuit, allowing US developers to apply for exception to the App Store rules, but was still collecting a 27% commission for alternative markets, from the usual 30%. Apple also required developers to use “terrorism screens” that warned consumers when clicking to make a purchase outside its app store.
In a major victory for developers, Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple was in a “voluntary violation” of the court’s order for anti -tantamine prices and committees, which would have seemed to return Fortnite to return to the App Store. But Apple sat in submission for a week instead, neither approved nor refused to publish the game, while her lawyers created an answer.
What will happen below could be important for Apple, as it can inspire similar legal action or regulation in other world markets.
Apple was the winner in EPIC’s initial antitrust action against the technological giant, as the court said it was not a monopoly. However, Epic Games carries out a victory in an area when Gonzalez Rogers agreed that iPhone users should have access to alternatives if a developer wanted to use his own website for in -application purchases, such as those for virtual goods or subscriptions.
Following the decision, Apple informed App Store policies for the US and applications, including Spotify, Amazon Kindle and Patreon, quickly put new versions of their applications to benefit from new functionality.
The epic games refused to comment. Apple did not respond to a request for comments.
