#Apple vs epic case trial#
#Apple vs epic case license#

While Apple has so far declined to allow the app back in the App Store, the Korean law has not yet gone into effect. Just this week, Epic asked Apple to reinstate its DPLA and allow Fortnite back on the App Store in Korea, where a new law forces Apple and Google to allow alternate in-app payment methods.

#Apple vs epic case license#

The court found that Apple’s termination of the Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA) was “ valid, lawful, and enforceable” at the time, and it will be up to Apple to decide whether to allow the app or not. This does not necessarily mean that Fortnite is coming back to the App Store. We are still analyzing the decision which is 180 pages long but the headline is that Apple’s App Store business model has been validated….In short, this is a resounding victory and underscores the merit of our business both as an economic and competitive engine. Let me repeat that: the Court found that Apple is not a monopolist under ‘either federal or state antitrust laws.’ … The Court has confirmed, after reviewing evidence from a 16-day trial, that Apple is not a monopolist in any relevant market and that its agreements with app developers are legal under the antitrust laws. Katherine Adams, Apple’s general counsel and senior vice president of Legal and Global Security, issued a statement praising the decision and calling it “a huge win for Apple.” By contrast, over 80% of all consumer accounts generate virtually no revenue, as 80% of all apps on the App Store are free. These gaming-app consumers are primarily making in-app purchases which is the focus of Epic Games’ claims. This 70% of revenue is generated by less than 10% of all App Store consumers. Generally speaking, on a revenue basis, gaming apps account for approximately 70% of all App Store revenues. Thus, defining the market to focus on gaming apps is appropriate. Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games’ next target and it views Apple as an impediment.įurther, the evidence demonstrates that most App Store revenue is generated by mobile gaming apps, not all apps. The size of this market explains Epic Games’ motive in bringing this action. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion industry.

#Apple vs epic case trial#

Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store. The Court disagrees with both parties’ definition of the relevant market. This was a case about mobile gaming more than anything else, the court found, and mobile gaming transactions make up nearly all the money Apple makes from the App Store: Interestingly, the court found that “relevant market” was not what either Epic or Apple argued it to be.

When coupled with Apple’s incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice. Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws.