Epic vs apple case11/4/2023 Apple’s restrictions create a heterogenous market for app-transaction platforms which, as a result, increases interbrand competition-the primary goal of antitrust law. Users who place a premium on low prices can (by purchasing an Android device) select one of the several open app-transaction platforms, which provide marginally less security and privacy. Users who value security and privacy can select (by purchasing an iPhone) Apple’s closed platform and pay a marginally higher price for apps. With Apple’s restrictions in place, users are free to decide which kind of app-transaction platform to use. The court also added that the App Store protects user privacy and data while still giving users the freedom to choose a platform: The panel held that, independent of the district court’s errors, Epic failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive. The panel held that the district court erred as a matter of law in defining the relevant antitrust market and in holding that a non-negotiated contract of adhesion, such as the DPLA, falls outside the scope of Sherman Act § 1, but those errors were harmless. On Epic’s appeal, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of antitrust liability and its corresponding rejection of Epic’s illegality defense to Apple’s breach of contract counter-claim. The iPhone maker, in turn, is arguing that the court made a legal error when considering the anti-steering issue. Both Apple and Epic Games filed appeals on different aspects of the ruling.Įpic is appealing the ruling that the App Store is not a monopoly, arguing that there is no other way for developers to sell iPhone apps other than through Apple. The court ruled that Apple must allow developers to steer app users to external payment platforms, but concluded that the company did not meet the legal tests to be considered a monopoly – and thus did not have to permit competing app stores for iOS apps. Apple legal battle prior to today’s decision:Įpic Games sued Apple for not allowing it to use its own payment platform instead of in-app purchases through the App Store, with Apple taking a 30% cut. Here’s a recap of where we stood in the Epic vs. The battle between Apple and Epic Games began when Epic circumvented App Store policies and added a direct payment option to Fortnite for iPhone. We respectfully disagree with the court’s ruling on the one remaining claim under state law and are considering further review. The App Store continues to promote competition, drive innovation, and expand opportunity, and we’re proud of its profound contributions to both users and developers around the world. For the second time in two years, a federal court has ruled that Apple abides by antitrust laws at the state and federal levels. Today’s decision reaffirms Apple’s resounding victory in this case, with nine of ten claims having been decided in Apple’s favor. The company, however, stopped short of saying it will file an appeal. The company did say, however, that it still “respectfully disagree“ with the court’s upholding of the original decision that ruled Apple can’t forbid developers from directing users to third-party payment options. In a statement to 9to5Mac, Apple called today’s ruling a “resounding victory in this case” and touted the continued benefits of the App Store. As reported by Bloomberg, the US Ninth Circuit of Appeals has upheld the decision first handed down in November of 2021, which found that Apple is not a “monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws.” Apple’s statement on today’s decision Apple once again has proven victorious in its ongoing legal battle with Epic Games.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |