Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CHRISTINE A. VARNEY (pro hac vice)
`cvarney@cravath.com
`KATHERINE B. FORREST (pro hac vice)
`kforrest@cravath.com
`GARY A. BORNSTEIN (pro hac vice)
`gbornstein@cravath.com
`YONATAN EVEN (pro hac vice)
`yeven@cravath.com
`LAUREN A. MOSKOWITZ (pro hac vice)
`lmoskowitz@cravath.com
`JUSTIN C. CLARKE (pro hac vice)
`jcclarke@cravath.com
`M. BRENT BYARS (pro hac vice)
`mbyars@cravath.com
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, New York 10019
`Telephone: (212) 474-1000
`Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
`
`PAUL J. RIEHLE (SBN 115199)
`paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 591-7500
`Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-defendant
`Epic Games, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`
`Case No. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`Plaintiff, Counter-defendant,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant, Counterclaimant.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`PLAINTIFF EPIC GAMES, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT APPLE
`INC.’S MOTION FOR STAY OF
`INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`Date: Nov. 16, 2021, 2 p.m. (noticed date)
`Nov. 9, 2021, 2 p.m. (stipulated date
`pending Court approval)
`Courtroom: 1, 4th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`B.
`C.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................3
`A.
`The Court Found Apple Liable under the UCL and Issued a Permanent
`Injunction after Trial. ...............................................................................................3
`Apple Celebrated the Court’s Ruling and Injunction. .............................................5
`Epic Agrees To Comply with Apple’s Rules, But Apple Refuses Epic’s
`Return to the App Store. ..........................................................................................5
`Apple Files Its Motion To Maintain Its Anti-Steering Rules. .................................6
`D.
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................6
`I.
`APPLE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WOULD BE IRREPARABLY
`INJURED ABSENT A STAY. ............................................................................................7
`APPLE IS UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF ITS
`CROSS-APPEAL. .............................................................................................................12
`A.
`Epic Continues to Have Standing. .........................................................................12
`B.
`Epic Proved a Violation of the UCL. .....................................................................15
`C.
`Granting the UCL Injunction Was Within the Court’s Equitable Authority. ........20
`EPIC WOULD BE HARMED BY A STAY. ....................................................................23
`THE PUBLIC INTEREST WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF ENFORCING THE
`INJUNCTION AGAINST APPLE. ...................................................................................23
`THE COURT SHOULD DENY APPLE’S ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR A
`TEMPORARY STAY. ......................................................................................................25
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25
`
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Adobe Sys., Inc. Privacy Litig.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................... 15
`
`Biovail Corp. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.,
`448 F. Supp. 2d 154 (D.D.C. 2006) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Bos. Sci. Corp. v. BioCardia, Inc.,
`524 F. Supp. 3d 914 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................... 13
`
`Bresgal v. Brock,
`843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................. 22
`
`Campbell v. Nat’l Passenger R.R. Corp.,
`No. 05-CV-5434, 2009 WL 4546673 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009) ........................................... 25
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
`20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999) ........................................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`Church & Dwight Co. v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics, GmbH,
`No. 14-CV-585 AJN, 2015 WL 5051769 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2015) ................................ 11, 12
`
`Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Hoen,
`No. C04-360P, 2006 WL 2645183 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 14, 2006) .............................................. 8
`
`Dameron Hosp. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`No. 12-CV-2246, 2013 WL 5718886 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2013) .............................................. 25
`
`In re Data Gen. Corp. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. MDL 369 (MHP), 1986 WL 10899 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 1986).......................................... 20
`
`Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Ozwear Connection Pty, Ltd.,
`No. CV 14–2307 RSWL, 2014 WL 4679001 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014) ................................ 23
`
`Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole,
`83 Cal. App. 4th 436 (2000) ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`Doe #1 v. Trump,
`957 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan,
`92 F.3d 1486 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 22
`
`Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd.,
`493 U.S. 331 (1990) .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Freitag v. Ayers,
`468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. San Francisco,
`512 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`Haas Automation v. Denny,
`No. 12-cv-04779, 2014 WL 2966989 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2014) ................................................ 20
`
`Herr v. Nestle U.S.A., Inc.,
`109 Cal. App. 4th 779 (2003) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell,
`390 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`Hunt v. Check Recovery Sys., Inc,
`No. 05-CV-4993, 2008 WL 2468473 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2008) ............................................. 25
`
`Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`718 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 20
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) .................................................................................................................. 23
`
`LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. UpCounsel, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-02573-YGR, 2019 WL 160335 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) ...................................... 16
`
`Leiva-Perez v. Holder,
`640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 6, 7
`
`Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................... 15
`
`Montano v. Bonnie Brae Convalescent Hosp., Inc.,
`79 F. Supp. 3d 1120 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 23
`
`Natural Res. Def. Council v. Sw. Marine, Inc.,
`236 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ................................................................................................................ 6, 7
`
`ODonnell v. Harris Cty.,
`260 F. Supp. 3d 810 (S.D. Tex. 2017) ...................................................................................... 10
`
`Ohio v. Am. Express Co.,
`138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018) .............................................................................................................. 19
`
`Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-VCF, 2016 WL 6650835 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016) ................... 7, 12, 24
`
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Pipe Restoration Techs., LLC v. Coast Bldg. & Plumbing, Inc.,
`No. 8:13-CV-00499-JDE, 2018 WL 6012219 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2018) ............................... 22
`
`Rubio v. Cap. One Bank,
`613 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 12, 13
`
`S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson Cty., Or.,
`372 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 14
`
`Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Sundance Image Tech., Inc. v. Inkjetmall.com, Ltd.,
`No. 02-cv-2258, 2005 WL 8173280 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2005) ................................................ 16
`
`Ticconi v. Blue Shield of Cal. Life & Health Ins. Co.,
`160 Cal. App. 4th 528 (2008) ................................................................................................... 22
`
`United States v. Am. Express,
`838 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................... 19
`
`United States v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.,
`248 F. Supp. 3d 720 (W.D.N.C. 2017) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`United States v. Mitchell,
`971 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Wang Labs. Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elecs. Am. Inc.,
`No. CV 92-4698, 1993 WL 574424 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 1993) ................................................. 9
`
`Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc.,
`559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Statutes & Rules
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ..................................................................................................... 16
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`On September 10, 2021, this Court entered an injunction that provided consumers and
`developers with much needed—and long-awaited—relief. This Court struck provisions in
`Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) that “contractually enforce[] silence”
`and “hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice”. (Opinion
`(“Op.”) at 2, 166.) The Court gave Apple 90 days to comply. In response to the Court’s decision,
`Apple publicly declared “a resounding victory”, dismissively describing the injunction as nothing
`more than “one or two sentences scratched out of an agreement”. (Byars Decl. Exs. A, B.) Now,
`after allowing nearly a third of the 90 days to elapse, Apple has changed course.
`In its Motion for a Stay of the Injunction Pending Appeal (the “Motion” or “Mot.”), Apple
`now claims that the Court’s injunction would cause it irreparable harm. Apple suggests that,
`during the requested stay, it may voluntarily take unspecified actions, in Apple’s preferred way
`and on Apple’s preferred schedule, to address (at least in part) the decade-old problem identified
`by the Court. But the stay that Apple requests, until “the appeals filed by both Epic and Apple
`have been resolved” (Mot. at 1), could easily last many years. During that time, there is no reason
`to expect that Apple will cease its longstanding unfair conduct, the legality of which it continues
`to vigorously defend. As the Court found, “nothing other than legal action seems to motivate
`Apple” to reconsider its pricing or other restrictions on the App Store. (Op. at 36.) A stay would
`simply let Apple off the hook, and perpetuate the harms to consumers and developers, for a
`substantial period of time.
`Apple has not satisfied any of the requirements for a stay, much less all of them.
`First, Apple must demonstrate that it would be irreparably harmed absent a stay. It has
`not done so. Apple asserts that its In-App Purchase solution (“IAP”) provides benefits to
`consumers, and suggests that the injunction will interfere with those supposed benefits. But the
`injunction does not prevent the use of IAP; it simply provides consumers increased information
`and choice. Consumers can still use IAP if they so choose. Better-informed consumer choice is
`not irreparable harm to Apple—it is competition. Apple also argues that the injunction will
`undermine the security of iOS. That is pretextual. Apple already allows iOS apps that offer
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`MOTION TO STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`physical goods and services to do exactly what it is now seeking to bar; countless apps on the App
`Store currently contain “buttons, external links or other calls to action” regarding payment
`solutions other than IAP. Apple’s assertion that it needs to keep consumers in the dark in order to
`be compensated for its intellectual property is equally unavailing. The injunction does not
`prevent Apple from charging and collecting a price that the market will bear. In sum, this request
`for a stay is an effort to re-litigate issues that the Court already considered and rejected when it
`found that “Apple’s business justifications . . . will not be significantly impacted by the increase
`of information to and choice for consumers”. (Op. at 166.) (§ I below.)
`Second, Apple must make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its
`cross-appeal. Apple has not done so. At the outset, Apple’s challenge to Epic’s standing is pure
`gamesmanship. After removing Fortnite from iOS, Apple repeatedly told Epic, the Court and the
`public for more than a year that Apple would permit Epic back on iOS if Epic promised to
`comply with Apple’s rules. Following the Court’s decision, Epic made this promise, paid the
`Court’s judgment in full and requested reinstatement of its Apple Developer Program account that
`it used to distribute Fortnite, Battle Breakers, Infinity Blade Stickers and Shadow Complex
`Remastered (the “’84 Developer Program account”). Apple refused. Apple now asks this Court
`to reward Apple’s duplicity by arguing that Apple’s change of course deprives Epic of standing.
`That gambit fails, because Epic continues to challenge the termination of its ’84 Developer
`Program account and retains a concrete interest in bringing competition to the iOS ecosystem.
`Moreover, even without its ’84 Developer Program account, Epic continues to face injury through
`its financial interest in its subsidiaries’ apps that are on the App Store and in revenue earned from
`the iOS apps of its Unreal Engine licensees.
`In addition, Epic proved a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)
`under both the tethering and balancing tests. Apple’s contention that the Court failed to consider
`a proper market for analyzing its anti-steering provisions is incorrect. The Court expressly found
`that it was appropriate to consider all apps, and Apple does not make any substantive argument as
`to why the Court was wrong to do so. For example, Apple does not identify any reason why the
`
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`effect of the anti-steering provisions would be limited to gaming apps. It was also well within
`this Court’s broad equitable authority to grant the injunction. (§ II below.)
`Third, Apple must show that the issuance of the stay will not substantially injure Epic.
`But Epic would be harmed by a stay, as Epic continues to suffer injury from Apple’s anti-steering
`provisions because, as noted above, it maintains a concrete, financial interest in its subsidiaries’,
`partners’ and licensees’ ability to benefit from the injunction. (§ III below.)
`Fourth, Apple must show that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the stay. It
`has not done so. In fact, the public interest favors denying the Motion; an injunction is the only
`path to effective relief. The Court gave Apple 90 days to comply with the injunction; nowhere in
`the Motion does Apple show that 90 days is insufficient. Instead, Apple contends that it is
`“working hard to address these difficult issues in a changing world”. (Mot. at 2.) History shows,
`however, that in the absence of an injunction, Apple will not make any changes. The Court found
`that Apple does not face significant competitive pressure. (See Op. at 144 (“Apple’s maintenance
`of its commission rate stems from market power, not competition.” (emphasis in original)).)
`Indeed, the Court found that “nothing other than legal action seems to motivate Apple to
`reconsider pricing and reduce rates”. (Op. at 36; see also id. at 35 (citing Mr. Schiller’s testimony
`that “‘this lawsuit’ helped ‘get [the Small Business Program] done’ along with ‘scrutiny and
`criticism . . . from around the world’”).) (§ IV below.)
`Based on the ample evidence at trial of the harm to consumers and developers and Apple’s
`unwillingness to change without legal action, Apple’s plea that the Court trust Apple to fix the
`problem on its own should be rejected. Its Motion seeking to delay the effects of this Court’s
`Permanent Injunction—for years—should be denied.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Court Found Apple Liable under the UCL and Issued a Permanent
`Injunction after Trial.
`
`In August 2020, Epic filed suit against Apple, claiming violations of the Sherman Act, the
`Cartwright Act, and the UCL. (Dkt. 1.) Among the policies Epic challenged was Section 3.1.1 of
`Apple’s Guidelines, to which developers must adhere when distributing apps on the App Store.
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`3
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`(Id. ¶ 130.) Pursuant to this Guideline, Apple prohibited “buttons, external links, or other calls to
`action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase”. (Id.
`(emphases removed) (quoting the Guidelines).) Epic also challenged Section 3.1.3 of the
`Guidelines, which provided that developers may not “directly or indirectly target iOS users to use
`a purchasing method other than [Apple’s] in-app purchase,” and barred “general communications
`[to users] about other purchasing methods . . . designed to discourage use of [Apple’s] in-app
`purchase”. (Id. ¶ 131 (emphases removed) (quoting the Guidelines).)1
`After trial in May 2021, the Court made detailed findings regarding Guidelines 3.1.1.
`and 3.1.3 (hereinafter, “the anti-steering provisions”). The Court found that these provisions
`“hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice” (Op. at 2), “limit
`information flow to consumers on the payment structure related to in-app purchases” (Op. at 3),
`are used by Apple to “hide information on [its] commission rates from the consumers” (Op.
`at 50-51), and “actively den[y]” users the choice of payment solution (Op. at 119). The Court
`also pointed to Apple’s own documents and credited testimony from third-party developers
`showing that the anti-steering provisions hinder developers from offering lower prices to
`consumers. (Op. at 93.) Pursuant to these findings, the Court found that Apple violated the UCL,
`which prohibits business practices that constitute unfair competition (Op. at 159), and issued a
`permanent injunction enjoining Apple
`
`“from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and
`their metadata buttons, external links or other calls to action that
`direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App
`Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points
`of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account
`registration within the app”. (Permanent Injunction (Dkt. 813) ¶ 1.)
`
`The injunction is to take effect on December 9, 2021. (Id.)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 At the time of trial, Guideline 3.1.3 read: “Apps in this section cannot, either within the app
`or through communications sent to points of contact obtained from account registration within the
`app (like email or text), encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase.”
`(PX-2790.)
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The Court found for Apple on Epic’s other counts. (Op. at 179.) The Court also found for
`Apple on Apple’s breach of contract and declaratory relief counterclaims. (Op. at 173, 179.)
`Epic appealed and Apple cross-appealed the Court’s decision. (Dkts. 816; 820.)
`Apple Celebrated the Court’s Ruling and Injunction.
`B.
`Following the Court’s decision and accompanying injunction, Apple gave no indication
`that it was displeased. To the contrary, Kate Adams, Apple’s general counsel, told reporters that
`the result was “a resounding victory” that “underscores the merit” of Apple’s business. (Byars
`Decl. Ex. A.) Similarly, Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, told all Apple employees during a company-
`wide meeting: “I think the ruling will be very good to try to put some of the discussions to rest on
`the App Store. In terms of the one [claim] we lost, there were one or two sentences scratched out
`of an agreement, that was the extent of it”. (Byars Decl. Ex B.)
`Epic Agrees To Comply with Apple’s Rules, But Apple Refuses Epic’s Return
`C.
`to the App Store.
`
`In Apple’s pending Motion, Apple declares that “Epic has no intention of complying with
`Apple’s Guidelines notwithstanding any protestations to the contrary”. (Mot. at 5.) That is not
`correct. Epic promptly and fully complied with the Court’s decision. Within four days, Epic paid
`Apple the damages the Court found to be due on Apple’s breach of contract counterclaim.
`(Op. at 179; Byars Decl. Ex. C.) Epic disabled Epic Direct Pay in legacy copies of Fortnite on
`iOS, promised to comply with Apple’s App Store rules going forward and requested
`reinstatement of its ’84 Developer Program account. (Byars Decl. Exs. C, D; Perry Decl. Supp.
`Mot., Ex. C, Dkt. 821-4 (“Epic promises that it will adhere to Apple’s guidelines whenever and
`wherever we release products on Apple platforms.”).)
`As the Court found, prior to trial, Apple “repeatedly[] offered to allow Epic Games to
`return Fortnite to the App Store, so long as Epic Games agreed to comply with its contractual
`commitments”. (Op. at 26; see also Schiller Decl. (Dkt. 37) ¶ 15 (“[W]e informed Epic that
`Fortnite could remain on the App Store if Epic simply removed the alternative payment option
`and brought the Fortnite app back into compliance.”).) Apple repeated that offer at trial. (See
`Trial Tr. 58:6-9 (Dunn) (“Apple told Epic that Fortnite was welcome back into the App Store, as
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`5
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`long as Epic would comply with the guidelines that apply equally to all developers. And that
`offer still stands today.”); Trial Tr. 3918:24-3919:6, 3919:15-19 (Cook) (acknowledging that he
`“the whole time said that” “Epic [would still be] welcome to come back” to the App Store).)
`Apple even reiterated this offer the day before the Court issued its ruling: “As we’ve said all
`along, we would welcome Epic’s return to the App Store if they agree to play by the same rules as
`everyone else.” (Byars Decl. Ex. E.) However, shortly after the Court’s decision, Apple rejected
`Epic’s request for reinstatement of its Developer Program account and said it would not again
`consider such a request until resolution of all appeals in this case—in other words, for years.
`(Byars Decl. Exs. C, D.)
`Apple Files Its Motion To Maintain Its Anti-Steering Rules.
`D.
`For four weeks, Apple proclaimed victory and minimized the significance of the Court’s
`injunction. Then, Apple filed its Motion seeking to delay implementation of the injunction and
`professing that the injunction would cause it irreparable harm. The Motion does not satisfy the
`requirements for obtaining a stay and should be denied.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`As the party requesting a stay, Apple “bears the burden of showing that the circumstances
`justify an exercise of [the Court’s] discretion”. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009).
`Courts analyze four factors when evaluating whether to grant a stay pending appeal: “(1) whether
`the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
`(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay
`will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public
`interest lies”. Id. at 426. While courts take a “flexible approach” when determining whether a
`stay is appropriate, if the applicant “has not made a certain threshold showing regarding
`irreparable harm . . . then a stay may not issue, regardless of [the] proof regarding the other stay
`factors”. See Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2011).
`Apple cannot meet its burden on any of the four prongs for a stay pending appeal.
`(§§ I-IV below.) Nor is Apple entitled to its alternative request for a stay pending a Ninth Circuit
`decision on Apple’s request for a stay pending appeal. (§ V below.)
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`6
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`APPLE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WOULD BE IRREPARABLY
`INJURED ABSENT A STAY.
`
`“[S]imply showing some possibility of irreparable injury” is insufficient for a stay. Nken,
`556 U.S. at 434 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, Apple “must demonstrate that
`irreparable harm is probable—as opposed to merely possible—if the stay is not granted; that is,
`irreparable harm must be ‘the more probable or likely outcome’”. United States v. Mitchell,
`971 F.3d 993, 996 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at 968). Apple “cannot meet
`this burden by submitting conclusory factual assertions and speculative arguments that are
`unsupported in the record”. Doe #1 v. Trump, 957 F.3d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation
`omitted). Here, Apple does not show that any harm is probable, let alone irreparable.
`As an initial matter, Apple’s allegations of irreparable harm are entirely inconsistent with
`its post-decision statements. In the days following the decision, it minimized the Court’s
`injunction against Apple’s anti-steering rules, stating that it amounted to “one or two sentences
`scratched out of an agreement, that was the extent of it”. (Byars Decl. Ex. B.) Apple also stated
`that it was “very pleased with the Court’s ruling” and that “Apple’s App Store business model has
`been validated” by the Court. (Byars Decl. Ex. A.)
`In contrast to these repeated public statements, Apple now claims that: “[a]bsent a stay,
`Apple would be forced to permit developers to engage in conduct that will disrupt Apple’s lawful
`App Store business model”, and credits statements that “the fabric of Apple’s App Store could be
`forever changed”. (Mot. at 7.) The Court should heavily discount Apple’s current claims of
`irreparable harm in light of its public statements, which acknowledge that the injunction will not
`disrupt the App Store business model or its “fabric”. See Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-VCF, 2016 WL 6650835, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016) (refusing to stay a
`permanent injunction in part because defendant was “disingenuous” when it “repeatedly made
`statements to the public that the [court’s] injunction would not prohibit” its business yet then
`moved for a stay). Rather, the injunction will promote competition in a market where Apple’s
`market power and anti-steering rules have, as the Court’s findings of fact establish, allowed Apple
`to charge supracompetitive prices and reduce innovation. (See, e.g., Op. at 118, 163.)
`EPIC’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
`7
`CASE NO. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR-TSH
`MOTION FOR STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 824 Filed 10/22/21 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Setting aside the contradictory nature of Apple’s statements in public and in its Motion,
`Apple’s irreparable harm arguments also fail on their own terms.
`First, the core of Apple’s irreparable harm argument focuses on the supposed benefits of
`IAP and contends that users who decide not to use IAP would not receive those benefits. (Mot.
`at 9.) This is not a harm to Apple. Irreparable harm arguments must focus on harm to the stay
`applicant, not purported harms to third parties. (See Tr. of Proceedings on Mot. for TRO
`(Dkt. 50) at 32:6-8 (The Court: “[I]rreparable harm is to the party. [W]ith respect to the public
`interest, that issue impacts the community.”); see also Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. San Francisco,
`512 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir