Apple Inc. recently requested a stay of the mandate in the ongoing Epic Games v. Apple case, pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The company believes that there are significant legal issues at stake that necessitate a stay.
"Apple Inc. respectfully requests that this Court stay the mandate pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari that Apple intends to file in the Supreme Court," Apple said.
According to the appeal issued on July 3, the focal point of Apple's argument revolves around the district court's injunction, which prohibits the company from enforcing its anti-steering rules against all iOS app developers in the United States. Apple contends that this injunction goes beyond the scope permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and exceeds the district court's authority under Article III. They assert that the injunction extends to non-parties without class certification and that Epic Games, Inc. did not demonstrate the necessity of such an injunction to fully resolve the case. Apple anticipates that the Supreme Court will address this issue, as it has shown concern regarding universal injunctions in the past.
Furthermore, Apple asserts that granting a stay is justified because the injunction would require them to modify their business model prior to the completion of the judicial review process. They argue that the injunction would limit their ability to safeguard users from various risks and objectionable content. On the other hand, Apple believes that Epic Games, Inc., as a non-iOS app developer, would not be disadvantaged by a stay and would not benefit from the injunction.
According to the motion filed, the decision made by the panel in the Epic Games v. Apple case has sparked debates concerning the extent of injunctions and the burden of proof required for Article III standing. While the ruling upheld the district court's injunction against Apple, it did not provide a clear explanation for the harm alleged by Epic Games and its subsidiaries. The Court also did not address whether Epic Games needed to satisfy Rule 23(a) or (b) to obtain the relief granted, nor did it determine the necessity of an evidentiary hearing to establish the need for the injunction to make Epic Games whole.
Apple argues that the decision has raised concerns about the expansion of district courts' equitable power beyond Rule 23 and the potential misuse of universal injunctions. Legal scholars and observers have called for a review of the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions, citing concerns related to federalism and the separation of powers. The Supreme Court has expressed an interest in addressing the proliferation of universal injunctions, and the Epic Games v. Apple case provides an opportune moment to clarify the legal standards involved. The ruling also raises questions regarding Article III standing, including the burden of proof and the requirement for an "actual or imminent" injury. In this particular case, Epic Games failed to demonstrate past or prospective injury resulting from Apple's anti-steering provisions, thereby underscoring the need for clarification on the evidentiary requirements for establishing standing.
The motion documents highlight the wide-ranging implications of the injunction, prompting Apple to request a stay to facilitate the Supreme Court's review of their petition for a writ of certiorari. By granting a temporary stay, potential harm to Apple and its users can be avoided, as the injunction could expose them to privacy risks, fraud and objectionable content. Moreover, the absence of harm to Epic Games and the lack of prejudice resulting from a stay further strengthen the argument in favor of granting the temporary stay.
The motion documents underscore the wide-ranging implications of the injunction, prompting Apple to request a stay to facilitate the Supreme Court's review of their petition for a writ of certiorari. By granting a temporary stay, potential harm to Apple and its users can be avoided, as the injunction could expose them to privacy risks, fraud, and objectionable content. Additionally, the absence of harm to Epic Games and the lack of prejudice resulting from a stay further strengthen the argument in favor of granting the temporary stay.
