What you need to know
- Epic v. Apple has been reassinged to a new judge.
- United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will now preside over the case.
- The judge is currently presiding over two other antitrust cases against Apple.
Apple and Epic's court case has already been reassigned to a new judge.
Reported by Foss Patents, Epc Games' antitrust lawsuit against Apple has been reassigned to United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The judge is already presiding over to other class action lawsuits against Apple that are similar to what Epic is suing the company over.
Approximately 18 hours ago, a clerk's notice already mentioned the possibility of Epic Games' antitrust action against Apple over its App Store terms and policies being reassigned to Oakland-based United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The following related case order just came down, and this means Epic Games v. Apple travels over the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
The first lawsuit, Pepper v. Apple, is a class action lawsuit seeking indirect antitrust damages. The second, Cameron v. Apple, is a lawsuit brought forward by three developers who claim Apple abused its monopoly over the App Store.
Pepper v. Apple is a consumer class action that started in 2011 and went up all the way to the Supreme Court, a 5-4 majority of which allowed it to go forward despite earlier SCOTUS case law (Illinois Brick) denying consumers the right to claim indirect antitrust damages. Cameron v. Apple is a class action in which three app developers (Donald R. Cameron of California, Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. of Illinois, and Barry Sermons of Georgia) allege Apple abused a monopoly. That case is structurally more similar to Epic's lawsuit as it's an app developer--not consumer--case. It was brought last year. The Gibson Dunn firm represents Apple in that case, as it does against Epic.
Because of the change, Epic will now have to resubmit its motion for a temporary restraining order that would block Apple from removing Epic Games' access to the App Store and development tools.
Note that Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote any motions would have to be renoticed, which applies to Epic's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) as well. At this point it's highly unlikely Apple would still have to respond to the motion on Friday as Judge Gonzalez Rogers may very well set a different briefing schedule once Epic has renoticed the motion.
Epic Games is suing Apple (and Google) claiming that they hold a monopoly of the App Store and its policies. The latest result of Epic's refusal to follow Apple's App Store policies is its loss of access to the developer tools that make it possible to publish apps on the App Store.