Apple resorted to unusual delay tactics this week as it worked to meet a court-imposed deadline in its ongoing legal battle with Epic Games. Despite requesting additional time, the company was granted only short extensions before eventually submitting its filing.
The dispute centres on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where both parties agreed in May to a pre-court schedule. The arrangement was designed to allow Apple and Epic to negotiate new commission rates for app transactions handled outside the App Store, known as “linked-out purchases”.
The agreed schedule
Under the terms set out in May, Apple was given 45 days to file a “proffer”, a good-faith offer of evidence, testimony and other material for the court. This document, limited to 30 pages, was expected to propose commission rates for purchases and explain why those levels were chosen.
Following that, Apple was required to hand Epic all non-privileged documents relating to its decision-making process, along with a privilege log, within ten days. Within a further five days, the two companies would meet to discuss the privilege log and determine which documents would undergo third-party review.
The schedule then allows Epic to file its own response to Apple’s proffer, again in a 30-page document. That response has a timeline of within 60 days of Apple’s proffer filing or the completion of document production, whichever occurs last. Apple would then have another 30-day period to reply, with a 15-page limit, after which the court holds a status conference to decide what happens next.
Apple seeks more time
The first 45-day proffer deadline fell this week, and Apple duly reached it. However, on Tuesday the company requested a stay to delay proceedings further. The court determined that Apple had already been given sufficient time and granted its legal team just 24 hours to produce something. On Wednesday, a further 24-hour extension was approved.
Tim Sweeney, the chief executive and founder of Epic Games, responded to the developments on X. He questioned whether Apple would honestly document the costs for human reviewer time in its proposal, or whether the company would instead “fabricate outlandish new notions of cost previously unknown to mankind”.
Filing eventually submitted
The second 24-hour period proved sufficient for Apple to submit its filing on Thursday. Epic continues to maintain that Apple’s proposals do not go far enough, indicating that the dispute between the two companies remains unresolved.
The wider case has run for a considerable period, generating regular updates covering delays, availability and fees. The latest round of activity focused specifically on the commission rates Apple intends to apply to purchases made outside the App Store, and the extensions granted this week formed part of the pre-court schedule agreed earlier in the year.
Source
Image: appleinsider.com
