A major ruling has been made Friday, Sept. 10 in the Epic Games v. Apple case. Video game developer Epic Games, creator of the popular video game Fortnite, brought a lawsuit against Apple in Aug. 2020, arguing against Apple’s restrictions on apps that are listed on the App Store from having in-app purchasing methods other than the method provided by the App Store. Founder of Epic Games Tim Sweeney also challenged Apple’s practice of taking a 30 percent revenue cut of all purchases made in the App Store, believing that the cut was much too steep. Epic Games intentionally implemented changes to Fortnite Aug. 13, 2020 in order to bypass the App Store’s payment method, which prompted Apple to take the game down from the App Store. This then led Epic Games to file a lawsuit against Apple. Apple filed a countersuit stating that Epic Games had intentionally breached its terms of contract with Apple and that the technology company was prepared to defend itself against the games developer.
Epic Games also filed a lawsuit against Google on the same day after Google pulled Fortnite from its Google Play app store for similar reasons to Apple following the game’s updates. However, Google has stressed that the circumstances surrounding their case with Epic Games are different to those in the case with Apple, so the two lawsuits will be discussed separately.
Federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Epic Games had failed to provide evidence that Apple has a monopoly on the mobile gaming market through the App Store, ruling against nine out of 10 of Epic Games’ antitrust claims. Rogers insisted that Epic Games and its apps participate in a “digital mobile gaming transactions” market, which includes Google’s Android app platform Google Play. She also sided with Apple by keeping constant the company’s right to block stores from listing their own apps on the App Store.
While this may sound like a resounding win for Apple, Rogers’ complete verdict paints a picture of an Epic Games failure rather than an Apple victory. She states that this particular ruling found that Apple is not a monopolist only because Epic Games failed to demonstrate that, which leaves plenty of opportunities for antitrust claims against Apple in the future. She even expressed some frustration with Epic Games for failing to provide evidence to support claims she seemed prepared to entertain.
Rogers also found that Apple has no justification for its 30 percent revenue cut for all in-app purchases, and that this cut has allowed Apple to reap supracompetitive profits, or larger profits than expected in a competitive market. By declaring that Apple has market power, the company is now a target for more antitrust scrutiny and future lawsuits, and the prosecutors will have learned from Epic Games’ mistakes.
Apple’s one definite loss in the case is Rogers’ decision to allow developers to promote to their customers their own purchasing methods on their apps. Even though Apple can legally keep its 30 percent fee, it may have to lower it to prevent third-party developers from bypassing it entirely.
However, the story does not end here as Epic Games has filed a notice Sunday, Sept.12 to appeal Rogers’ decision in the lawsuit.
