Another major twist has occurred in the Epic vs Apple case that may end with everything getting thrown out thanks to new precedents and a lack of evidence from Epic.
Apple has filed for the court to set aside its injunction based on two new sets of precedents that didn’t exist when the injunction was filed. The 32 page court document goes into excruciating detail, and was first shared by X user Vidushi Dyall.
Basically, Apple says the injunction is no longer viable given two specific cases that took place in recent months — Beverage vs Apple and Murthy vs Missouri. The first is a state case that establishes Apple’s anti-steering rules aren’t unfair, and the second is, well, complicated.
To simplify it as much as possible, the Beverage vs Apple case establishes a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal government. So, the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple’s anti-steering rules are fair.
The Murthy vs Missouri case has to do with plaintiffs claiming the Biden administration pressured social media companies to control misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. That’s all mostly irrelevant besides how the court ruled, which says plaintiffs must establish a substantial future risk through evidence.
Apple says the Murthy ruling is important here because Epic is unable to establish how Apple’s anti-steering rules directly affect Epic’s business. That there is no proof that users would go to Epic and spend money without anti-steering in place instead of some alternative store.
Combining the two, Apple says there is ground to throw out the injunction or at least limit it to only apply to Epic. This all means that Apple could reestablish its anti-steering rules in the App Store Guidelines — unless it is dealing with Epic Games.
There is no doubt that this latest push from Apple will be met with appeals and arguments for months to come. Apple seems to make a credible case for changing or removing the injunction, but it all depends on what the court decides.
