- A US judge in California ruled Friday that Apple could bar Epic Games’s “Fortnite” game from its App Store, but the tech company must not harm Epic’s developer tools business.
- “The Court maintains its findings from the temporary restraining order and hereby grants in part and denies in part Epic Games’ motion for a preliminary injunction,” District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled.
- Last month, Epic Games had filed for a preliminary injunction that would put its game back in the App Store and restore its developer account after Apple terminated Epic Games’ account on its App Store.
- Epic sued Apple in August alleging anticompetitive behavior. The lawsuit came after Epic rolled out its own payment system in the popular Fortnite video game.
- Apple does not allow such alternative payment systems and removed Fortnite from the App Store and threatened to terminate Epic’s developer accounts, which would have affected Epic’s other
Fortnite won’t be coming back to the App Store any time soon. On Friday, Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers refused to grant Epic Games a preliminary injunction against Apple that would force the game developer to reinstate Fortnite on the App Store, while simultaneously granting an injunction that keeps Apple from retaliating against the Unreal Engine, which Epic also owns (PDF). In other words, we now have a permanent version of the temporary restraining order ruling from last month.
That means the state of affairs, in which Epic is banned from publishing new games on iOS and cannot distribute Fortnite on the App Store in its current form, will remain in place for the length of the trial — unless Epic decides to remove its own in-app payment mechanism that initiated the bitter legal feud in August. Rogers had previously suggested a jury trial might be appropriate as soon as next
A federal judge in California has ordered that Twitter reveal the identity of an anonymous user who allegedly fabricated an FBI document to spread a conspiracy theory about the killing of Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee staffer who died in 2016.
The ruling could lead to the identification of the person behind the Twitter name @whyspertech. Through that account, the user allegedly provided forged FBI materials to Fox News. The documents falsely linked
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. judge said on Tuesday he would hold a Nov. 4 hearing on whether to allow the U.S. government to bar transactions with TikTok, a move that the Chinese-owned short video-sharing app has warned would effectively ban its use in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington issued a preliminary injunction on Sept. 27 that barred the U.S. Commerce Department from ordering Apple Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google app stores to remove TikTok for download by new users.
Nichols must now decide whether to block the other aspects of the Commerce Department order set to take effect on Nov. 12. Nichols’ new hearing is scheduled for one day after the presidential election.
Talks are ongoing to finalize a preliminary deal for Walmart Inc and Oracle Corp to take stakes in a new company, TikTok Global, that would oversee U.S. operations. U.S. President Donald
The judge said the Air Force’s actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of the law, and that SpaceX was not entitled to any relief in this action.”
WASHINGTON — A California judge Oct. 2 officially ended SpaceX’s 18-month-long lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force. Following a Sept. 24 ruling denying SpaceX’s claim, the judge on Friday ordered the case to be closed.
U.S. District Court Judge Judge Otis Wright II of the Central District of California on Sept. 24 ruled against SpaceX in its legal complaint over contracts the U.S. Air Force awarded in October 2018 to United Launch Alliance, Northrop Grumman and Blue Origin.
The judge’s Sept. 24 order, first reported by Reuters, was sealed by the court because it contained sensitive information.
In the Oct. 2 motion to close the case, the judge noted that his Sept. 24 order denied SpaceX’s claim, “concluding that the
- The judge overseeing the legal battle between Apple and Epic Games said on Monday that a jury might be the best option to resolve the feud.
- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said she would issue a ruling on Epic’s request for an injunction. The injunction, if granted, would force Apple to put “Fortnite” back on the iOS App Store with its own in-house payment system during the trial.
- Since Epic Games updated its online game “Fortnite” in August, the gaming company has been publicly and privately going head to head with Apple over allowing players to skirt Apple’s payment system.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
The federal judge overseeing Epic Games’ lawsuit against Apple over in-app payments in “Fortnite” said Monday that a jury should decide the case.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California did not directly order a jury trial, but said “real people” should
A US judge hearing arguments in Epic’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple has criticized the game developer’s decision to breach its contract with the iPhone maker by pushing a version of Fortnite with a custom payment system onto the App Store. The decision resulted in Apple removing Fortnite from the App Store.
During a hearing on Monday with both companies, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California expressed skepticism about Epic’s arguments, particularly its claim that it did not pose a security threat to Apple because it is a well-established company and partner.
“You did something, you lied about it by omission, by not being forthcoming. That’s the security issue. That’s the security issue!” Rogers told Epic, according to a report from CNN. “There are a lot of people in the public who consider you guys heroes for what you guys
A US District Court judge has granted TikTok’s request for a preliminary injunction, delaying athat was supposed to go into effect starting Sunday at 11:59 p.m. ET.
The US Justice Department had until Friday to either. The DOJ filed a sealed opposition to TikTok’s preliminary injunction to block the ban of the video app, but Judge Carl Nichols of the District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled in TikTok’s favor.
“We’re pleased that the court agreed with our legal arguments and issued an injunction preventing the implementation of the TikTok app ban,” TikTok said in a statement. “We will continue defending our rights for the benefit of our community and employees. At the same time, we will also maintain our ongoing dialogue with
A federal judge in Oakland heard arguments today over a temporary restraining order in an antitrust case between Apple and Epic Games. In doing so, she shed light on some important arguments in the case.
The judge didn’t offer a ruling on the TRO, in which Epic is asking a judge to reinstate its Fortnite battle royale game in Apple’s App Store. Apple banned it in August because Epic Games offered its own direct payments to circumvent Apple collecting its full 30% fee on purchases in the game. Epic then filed an antitrust lawsuit. The case could go on for years, but the ruling on the TRO would be an early indication of what a federal judge thinks about the merits of the case.
But while Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers of the Oakland division of the U.S. District Court in Northern California hasn’t ruled yet on the TRO, she offered
During Monday’s hearing for Epic and Apple’s legal battle over the App Store and “Fortnite,” the judge suggested that the public’s opinion is important, with the matter otherwise penciled-in for a July bench trial.
Towards the end of a virtual hearing on Monday morning at the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told the legal teams of Epic and Apple that it would be worth considering having the trial with a jury to weigh in on the “Fortnite” saga”Fortnite” saga.
While a trial such as this could be handled by a judge or a group of judges, Rogers proposes it may be suitable for regular people to weigh in on the matter as a jury.
“They are important cases on the frontier of anti-trust law,” said Rogers, pointing out how major the case could be. However, Rogers also suggests the opinions