Apple asks U.S. Court of Appeals to halt district judge-ordered App Store change

Apple filed Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to halt a lower court judge’s decision that would force changes to its App Store while a legal fight with Epic Games continues. Apple seeks action by December 8th.

Apple logo

Tina Davis for Bloomberg News:

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers rejected Apple’s request to put on hold her ruling allowing developers to steer customers to payment methods outside the App Store, an overhaul the judge ordered in September that could cost the tech giant a few billion dollars annually. The company said at that time it would appeal to the higher court.

“Given the injunction’s effective date of Dec. 9, Apple seeks immediate entry of an administrative stay that would expire 30 days after the Court’s ruling on the stay motion,” according to the filing. Without a stay, “the App Store will have to be reconfigured — to the detriment of consumers, developers, and Apple itself.”

MacDailyNews Take: Has a ditzy district court judge ever tried to force Best Buy and Target to place signs next to each product in their stores that advertise lower prices for the same items at Walmart?

No, because any judge who issued such a ludicrous order would be, and should be, reversed on appeal amidst much ridicule.

If Apple’s appeal somehow fails, developers like Epic Games who want to advertise lower prices using Apple’s App Store should simply be charged an in-store advertising fee by Apple via a new In-App Advertising framework. We suggest the charge be 15% of sales resulting from said ads for developers making under $1 million per year and 30% for those making $1 million or more annually (or exactly what Apple currently charges for in-app purchases/subscriptions). 🙂

Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!


  1. Advertising in-app after it has been downloaded is NOT advertising inside of the store, it’s advertising inside of the product that the customer paid (or in this case, didn’t) for.

    Wanting to say “You can pay $11.99 here, or you can pay $15.99 here.” should at minimum be allowed, with the ideal thing being able to install software from outside of the “store” altogether.

    Yes, yes… “Apple owns iOS”… but while that’s true, they shouldn’t be able to control it and also prevent you from running something else on your device then.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.