A U.S. appeals court judge criticized Apple (AAPL.O) on Monday over legal arguments it made as it prepares to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a ruling that could require the iPhone maker to change payment practices in its App Store.
Still, despite the criticism of Apple's legal arguments, Smith and two other judges gave Apple 90 days to file a petition with the justices and paused its ruling on payment through apps.
Such links and buttons would give developers a chance to bypass paying 30% sales commissions to Apple. "Fortnite" maker Epic Games in 2020 sued Apple over its commissions, accusing Apple of violating U.S. antitrust law.
Smith wrote the majority decision in April in the 9th Circuit that kept in place most of the order issued in 2021 by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Smith defended the panel opinion in Monday's ruling.
"When our reasoning and the district court's findings are considered, Apple's arguments cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny," Smith wrote.
An Apple spokesperson and lawyers for the company involved in the case did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Apple's lawyers had asked the 9th Circuit to pause issuing the court's formal "mandate." The court's mandate would have imposed the injunction that Apple wants the Supreme Court to scrap. Epic Games opposed Apple's bid to delay the court's mandate.
But Apple's argument "overlooks aspects of the panel opinion's analysis that are inconvenient to its position," Smith wrote. Epic's role as a games distributor, Smith said, justified a broad-reaching injunction.
Smith said competition-law injunctions often have "incidental benefits to non-parties." That's because "antitrust law protects competition, not individual market participants," the judge wrote.
Apple seemed to make arguments that "challenge an imagined panel opinion on an imagined record," Smith wrote.
Epic chief executive Tim Sweeney in a tweet on Monday expressed disappointment that the injunction against Apple would remain paused for now. He said the 9th Circuit's order was "justice delayed, again."
The case is Epic Games Inc v. Apple Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-16506.
