According to Reuters, the Supreme Court will likely hear the case during its next term, which begins this October.
Apple’s math will likely be challenged
Apple’s filing said that Epic is hoping that the court fight will end with Apple charging a de minimis rate to developers who want to have more control over how transactions are completed in their apps.
In litigation that has been paused during the Supreme Court review, Epic expects to force Apple to show receipts explaining why commission rates are so high.
So far, Apple has claimed that commission fees “ensure that Apple can continue to receive compensation for use of its IP-protected tools, technologies, and services—the very things that attract developers and enable app creation.”
For example, with Epic, Apple claims that purchases like even a single “skin” that Fortnite players buy to make their characters look unique require a fee. Those commissions help Apple develop and update “the iPhone screen that displays it, the iPhone touch controls that direct the virtual character, the Apple silicon chip that processes all iOS software, the app development tools Epic used to build Fortnite for iOS, and the App Store platform that downloads, updates, and maintains the app,” their filing said.
If the Supreme Court sides with Apple and reverses the contempt finding, Apple is hoping to wriggle out of sharing “confidential business data regarding the company’s decision-making concerning the App Store, its implementation of linked-out purchases for developers, and its internal discussions regarding compliance with the injunction.”
Meanwhile, the UK is also hoping to analyze Apple’s actual costs. The CMA has suggested that Apple “could still levy fees” for allowing link-outs, “but that such charges would have to be applied fairly,” the Guardian reported. Like Epic, the Coalition for App Fairness suggested that any app store developer “charges should be justified by ‘transparent data’ from Apple and Google explaining any underlying cost to the tech companies.”
Apple did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.
