Apple vs Epic: Fortnite Maker Appeals Ruling in Lawsuit Alleging App Store Monopoly

The judge didn’t brand Apple as a monopolist or require it to allow competing stores to offer apps for iPhones, iPads and iPods.

By Associated Press | Updated: 13 September 2021 10:12 IST

Apple vs Epic: Fortnite Maker Appeals Ruling in Lawsuit Alleging App Store Monopoly

Epic would appeal the final judgment “and all orders leading to or producing that judgment”

Highlights

The decision also provided Apple with some vindication
The judge didn't brand Apple as a monopolist
The judge did conclude Apple has been engaging in unfair competition

Epic Games filed notice that is appealing a federal judge's decision in a lawsuit alleging that Apple has been running an illegal monopoly that stifles competition.

The maker of the popular Fortnite video game said in a court filing Sunday that it will take the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

In a 185-page decision rendered Friday, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to dismantle a lucrative part of the competitive barricade guarding its closely run iPhone app store, but she rejected Epic's allegations that Apple ran a monopoly.

[Sponsored] Samsung Galaxy S24: The Ultimate Camera Phone With Smarter On-Device AI

Epic's notice of appeal said it would appeal the final judgment “and all orders leading to or producing that judgment.”

The ruling continues to chip away at the so-called “walled garden” that Apple has built around its crown jewel, the iPhone, and its app store, without toppling it completely.

The decision also provided Apple with some vindication. The judge didn't brand Apple as a monopolist or require it to allow competing stores to offer apps for iPhone handsets, iPad devices, and iPods.

Epic Win in App Store Case Toughens Fight Against Google Play Rules

Those were two of the biggest objectives sought by Epic, which filed what it would hoped would be a landmark antitrust case last year after brazenly defying an exclusive payment system that funnels 15 percent to 30 percent of all in-app digital transactions on iPhone gadgets to Apple.

Such transactions can include everything from Netflix or Spotify subscriptions to the sale of digital item such as songs, movies or virtual tchotchkes for video games. Epic cast that highly lucrative fee as a price-gouging tactic that wouldn't be possible if competing stores were allowed to offer iPhone apps.

While parts of her decision raised questions about whether Apple's fees were driving up prices for consumers, Gonzalez Rogers left the fee structure intact and upheld the company's right to block other stores from offering apps for its iPhone. She sided with Apple on every other key point of the case.

But the judge did conclude Apple has been engaging in unfair competition under California law, prompting her to order the company to allow developers throughout the US to insert links to other payment options besides its own within iPhone apps. That change would make it easier for app developers to avoid paying Apple's commissions, potentially affecting billions of dollars in revenue annually.

Apple did its best to frame the decision as a complete victory, even as it acknowledged it may appeal the portion of the ruling that will make it easier for app developers sidestep Apple's commissions.

This week on Orbital, the Gadgets 360 podcast, we discuss iPhone 13 leaks and what we expect from the Apple event. Orbital is available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music and wherever you get your podcasts.

Affiliate links may be automatically generated - see our ethics statement for details.

Comments

For the latest tech news and reviews, follow Gadgets 360 on X, Facebook, WhatsApp, Threads and Google News. For the latest videos on gadgets and tech, subscribe to our YouTube channel. If you want to know everything about top influencers, follow our in-house Who'sThat360 on Instagram and YouTube.