The legal case known as Epic v. Apple has been reassigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers who is already presiding over two cases against Apple. Here’s what this move means (via FOSS Patents).

Epic v. Apple

First, any motions by the previous judge have to be renoticed. This means that the clock has been reset on Epic’s motion to file a restraining order, making it increasingly unlikely it will be granted before August 28 when it can’t access Apple developer tools.

Second, Judge Rogers is currently presiding over two other cases against Apple:

  • Pepper v. Apple, a consumer class action lawsuit started in 2011 that went to the Supreme Court. It’s related to antitrust laws and the App Store and it continues to move forward.
  • Cameron v. Apple, a class action lawsuit where three app developers claim Apple abused a monopoly. This was introduced in 2019.

In Judge Rogers’ history she has never granted temporary restraining orders in antitrust cases, and it’s not likely she will grant Epic’s motion. Another reason why it’s not likely to be granted is the argument that Epic brought this on itself when it purposely bypassed Apple’s payment system.

Since Epic’s case is similar to the other cases that Judge Rogers is presiding over, it’s possible Epic will be lumped together with the others in what’s known as a joinder of parties. Even if Epic doesn’t want to join, the judge can do it anyway.

It’s unknown whether Epic v. Google will also be placed under Judge Rogers, or whether the two cases will be combined.

Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments