Apple Uses Supreme Court Ruling toStrengthen Antitrust Case Against App StoreOrder

Apple is seeking to leverage a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling to bolster its case in anongoing legal battle with Epic Games, the developer of the popular game Fortnite.According to a fling made by Apple on Tuesday, the company believes that a June SupremeCourt decision, which limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctionsstrengthens its appealin the case.

Apple's legal team has brought the case to the 9th U.s. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sar Francisco, where the company is challenging a distnct court ruling that would force it toopen its App Store to more competition, The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judae Yvonne Gonza ez Rogers in April, demands that Apple allow developers, including Epic, the ability to direct consumers to alternative payment systems outside of the App store. This move is seen as a significant shift that would impact Apple's profitable revenue model, which currently takes a commisslon trom all App store transactions.

The case, which has been ongoing since 2020, stems from Epic Games' lawsuit accusing Apple of anti-competitive behavior in its control over iOS app distribution and in-app purchases. In 2021, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple must ease its restrictions, permitting developers to offer cheaper payment options. Apple, however, has repeatedly resisted these changes, arguing that such adjustments would harm the security and integrity of the App Store, which is central to its iOS ecosystem.

The Supreme Court's decision in June, which involved birthright citizenship, has now become a key part of Apple's argument. In that case, the justices limited the scope of nationwide injunctions, which are court orders that apply broadly, not just to the parties involved.This ruling, Apple contends, should limit the authority of judges to impose sweeping orders that affect not only the parties to a case but also the wider public, which could influence the ongoing legal proceedings.

As part of its appeal, Apple also argues that the lower court's finding that it was in contempt for not adhening to the prior injunction was unjust. Despite the ruling, Apple insists that it has complied with court orders and continues to defend its position.