![]() The court’s finding that Apple is not a monopolist with respect to the App Store, and therefore that it is incapable of an act of monopolization in the context of the App Store, is a tremendous weapon in Apple’s arsenal as it defends against a plethora of monopolization lawsuits in and outside the U.S., monopolization enforcement investigations brought by federal or state agencies, and legislative bids to restrict Apple’s business practices on the basis of monopolization. In terms of Epic’s antitrust case, Apple achieved almost complete victory, winning nine out of 10 counts. Some Key Takeaways Apple Achieved a Resounding Victory In addition to bolstering Apple’s defense in similar cases, the court’s decision sustains or raises the hurdles for plaintiffs in monopolization cases. In terms of federal antitrust litigation under the Sherman Act, however, Apple achieved a resounding victory. trial, neither party seemed a clear winner, with Apple’s stock sliding and mobile video game company shares jumping following the judge’s mixed decision. The Alphabet unit has denied wrongdoing.When Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued her decision in the high-profile Epic Games Inc. In response to the Digital Markets Act - a new series of laws in the European Union - Apple is planning to allow outside apps as early as next year as part of an update to the upcoming iOS 17 software update, Bloomberg News has reported.Īmid a changing legal landscape, Apple also plans to let users more easily change default settings, allow alternative web browsing engines, and open up more of its in-house features, such as Camera or Find My apps, to third-party developers.Įpic has made similar allegations about anticompetitive conduct in a lawsuit against Google over its Google Play store. and European authorities have taken steps to rein in Apple’s stronghold over the mobile market. ![]() Epic’s software, including the hit game “Fortnite,” still remains off the App Store and Apple devices, but Epic Games Chief Executive Tim Sweeney has hinted at a return to the platform in 2023. That addressed a core issue within Epic’s lawsuit against Apple, but the current Apple policy doesn’t apply to gaming apps. This means that so-called Reader apps, which encompass apps and services for digital newspapers and magazines, books, audio streaming and video watching, can point users to the web with a button to complete their sign-up. One was to allow developers to “steer” consumers - in some scenarios - to make payments for subscription apps outside of Apple’s own payment system. It directed Rogers to revisit her ruling that Epic didn’t owe Apple fees it paid attorneys.Įven before Rogers ruled, Apple already was making changes to how the App Store operates to mitigate developer concerns. The panel said it agreed with the finding by Rogers that Epic was “injured” under California’s competition laws due to Apple’s previous policy that stopped app developers from steering users to outside payment methods. “Unless the correct relevant market is identified, one cannot properly assess anticompetitive effects, procompetitive justifications, and the satisfaction of procompetitive justifications through less anticompetitive means,” U.S. One appeals court judge dissented from that part of the ruling, saying the case should go back to Rogers to reanalyze it using the relevant market. In a high-stakes lawsuit the could have big implication for apps and mobile gaming, Epic Games has at times seemed to help make Apple’s case as much as its own. Business Is Epic Games’ showdown with Apple turning into a mismatch?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |