Epic Games loses antitrust appeal in its battle against Apple's walled garden

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,175   +1,424
Staff member
A hot potato: Epic Games has suffered another setback as it loses its appeal against Apple's "overbearing" App Store policies. A three-judge applet panel says that the lower courts were correct in their ruling that keeps Apple's distribution platform mostly status quo. However, the across-the-board decision still leaves Cupertino having to allow external payment systems – an order Apple may still try to appeal.

Update (April 25): Shortly after publication an Epic Games spokesperson contacted TechSpot requesting we include a tweeted statement from CEO Tim Sweeney. Sweeney's comment seems to indicate Epic is working on an external platform for Fortnite or possibly other transactions.The tweet follows:

The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an early decision that Apple has not violated competition laws by booting Fortnite from the App Store. In September 2021, the lower courts ruled in Apple's favor in all but one of the 10 claims against it. The appellate panel agreed with the outcome, including the order that stated that Apple could not prevent developers from linking to payment options outside of iOS, which was a sizable win for Epic.

The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the debate about how online stores operate is essential but noted that its job was not to decide on the matter. Its focus was solely on whether the lower court came up with a just decision based on precedent, and in the panel's opinion, it had.

"There is a lively and important debate about the role played in our economy and democracy by online transaction platforms with market power," the judges wrote in their ruling. "Our job as a federal court of appeals, however, is not to resolve that debate – nor could we even attempt to do so. Instead, in this decision, we faithfully applied existing precedent to the facts."

However, further appeals are still possible. Apple told Engadget that it is considering its options for getting the ruling forcing it to allow devs to use outside payment methods overturned.

"Today's decision reaffirms Apple's resounding victory in this case, with nine of ten claims having been decided in Apple's favor," a spokesperson said. "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling on the one remaining claim under state law and are considering further review."

Epic started the fight in 2020 by blatantly violating Apple's guidelines in offering Fortnite players an alternative means of making in-game purchases. Apple responded as expected by kicking the uber-popular battle royale game out of the App Store. Google followed suit shortly after, and despite the lawsuit's status in the US, moods are shifting toward more open ecosystems.

Pressure from regulators outside the US might bring about more change than Epic's US lawsuit can. While US courts eventually approved Apple's motion to delay lowering the App Store restrictions on external payment systems, heat from international regulators has forced it to relax those same policies. Recent rumors also indicate that Apple might even allow sideloading in the next major update to iOS. Google has been placating overseas regulators similarly.

Permalink to story.

 
Wow, as if we needed any further proof that federal courts are bought and paid for. "Our job as a federal court of appeals, however, is not to resolve that debate – nor could we even attempt to do so." LOL! The federal courts routinely overreach and legislate from the bench, to such a degree that they've helped push America to the brink of civil war. "Instead, in this decision, we faithfully applied existing precedent to the facts." What facts, other than the fact they've ruled in favor of a monopoly repeatedly? In no other industry could a company get away with what Apple does.
 
I think Apple shoot itself on both foots with this trial. This win is more damaging than a loss. In many nations culture there is a word which describe a winning which will prove a hard loss at the end. Is a combination of both words: win+loose=woose.
Congratulation to Apple, they realy "woose'' this fight.
In greek culture this is called a Pyrrhic victory and the real winners are consumers and Epic.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the comments against Apple, it's pretty straightforward:

1) I created a city (iOS platform)
2) inside that city I built a mall (store) and take care that the foundations are good and work (code)
3) I rent a store from that mall and I expect to be paid for it. Instead of a fixed price that would be unfair for the small business, the rent is a percentage of the gains: you win little, pay little; win much with us, we all win and have the incentive to go further. The only point that it should be changed is the maximum amount Apple could demand: why should Apple win millions from one app? Their work is not more or less when for example epic earns 500k or 5m

You all really think epic is on the right to use Apple's work for free?! Epic won millions on Apple's platform, they should pay their share. They just want to use and abuse?! Nop, no right.

Epic is completely free to build their own phone and tablet, their software and install their store; they want to use Apple, Google or someone else's business? Pay.

Steam: they built SteamOS and Steam Deck.

At the end it seems obvious that they just want to come and win using other's work.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the comments against Apple, it's pretty straightforward:

1) I created a city (iOS platform)
2) inside that city I built a mall (store) and take care that the foundations are good and work (code)
3) I rent a store from that mall and I expect to be paid for it. Instead of a fixed price that would be unfair for the small business, the rent is a percentage of the gains: you win little, pay little; win much with us, we all win and have the incentive to go further. The only point that it should be changed is the maximum amount Apple could demand: why should Apple win millions from one app? Their work is not more or less when for example epic earns 500k or 5m

You all really think epic is on the right to use Apple's work for free?! Epic won millions on Apple's platform, they should pay their share. They just want to use and abuse?! Nop, no right.

Epic is completely free to build their own phone and tablet, their software and install their store; they want to use Apple, Google or someone else's business? Pay.

Steam: they built SteamOS and Steam Deck.

At the end it seems obvious that they just want to come and win using other's work.
That would be truth, if it was possible to install third party software to Apple phones. Which isnt. The only way to install anything is via their app store. And that means you are forced to be in their store. Thats monopoly.
 
I don't understand the comments against Apple, it's pretty straightforward:

1) I created a city (iOS platform)
2) inside that city I built a mall (store) and take care that the foundations are good and work (code)
3) I rent a store from that mall and I expect to be paid for it. Instead of a fixed price that would be unfair for the small business, the rent is a percentage of the gains: you win little, pay little; win much with us, we all win and have the incentive to go further. The only point that it should be changed is the maximum amount Apple could demand: why should Apple win millions from one app? Their work is not more or less when for example epic earns 500k or 5m

You all really think epic is on the right to use Apple's work for free?! Epic won millions on Apple's platform, they should pay their share. They just want to use and abuse?! Nop, no right.

Epic is completely free to build their own phone and tablet, their software and install their store; they want to use Apple, Google or someone else's business? Pay.

Steam: they built SteamOS and Steam Deck.

At the end it seems obvious that they just want to come and win using other's work.

Except on the Steam deck you have choice, I'm free at a minimum to install another OS and if SteamOS allows use of Flatpaks (I don't know the answer to this one) then I can install alternate storefronts as well.
 
That would be truth, if it was possible to install third party software to Apple phones. Which isnt. The only way to install anything is via their app store. And that means you are forced to be in their store. Thats monopoly.

That's not how it's worked for decades. Just because you have control over the software running on your own products doesn't mean you have anything resembling a monopoly.

Every video game console has done literally the same thing.
 
You have to see what brand the judges' devices are. If there's an infamous fruit behind it, everyone involved should go to jail.


Didn't Apple take Samsung just down the road from a huge Apple employment area to court - Naturally local people on jury will favour USA company and huge local employer - Jury system in USA for complex civil matters is super weird - for hot coffee I can understand.

From comments on TS imagine a Chinese company vs Apple case in The USA - I'm sure it will be real fair /s
 
Well if EU makes Apple allow sideloading like they always should've this won't be an issue.
 
I don't understand the comments against Apple, it's pretty straightforward:

1) I created a city (iOS platform)
2) inside that city I built a mall (store) and take care that the foundations are good and work (code)
3) I rent a store from that mall and I expect to be paid for it. Instead of a fixed price that would be unfair for the small business, the rent is a percentage of the gains: you win little, pay little; win much with us, we all win and have the incentive to go further. The only point that it should be changed is the maximum amount Apple could demand: why should Apple win millions from one app? Their work is not more or less when for example epic earns 500k or 5m

You all really think epic is on the right to use Apple's work for free?! Epic won millions on Apple's platform, they should pay their share. They just want to use and abuse?! Nop, no right.

Epic is completely free to build their own phone and tablet, their software and install their store; they want to use Apple, Google or someone else's business? Pay.

Steam: they built SteamOS and Steam Deck.

At the end it seems obvious that they just want to come and win using other's work.

In your city example, there would be nothing to stop people from going to a mall in the next city down the road and then bringing back the items they bought from that other city. This means your city's mall has competition. Apple is blocking this. They are the only mall allowed in the world and you can't bring products into their city from anywhere else. See the difference?

I agree with you though that it doesn't make sense for Epic to use the Apple app store and not have to pay them. That is what the court decided though. I don't get it either. But I also don't think you should have to make your own device just to be allowed to run an app store.
 
Last edited:
The court claims to be following precedence, but microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust for including a web browser with their operating system. Apple includes a web browser, blocks competing browser engines, blocks competing app stores, blocks competing arcades, blocks competing payment systems. But it's ok because it's not the courts job to resolve disputes. Just wow.
 
The code, when in run-time mode, is no longer in the property of the author of the code, but in the property of the owner of the hardware running the code. Apple owns the operating system code (the text) but not the executable state of the operating system code, so it cannot make rules over other people's property.

For example, Epic has ownership in the code (text) of the unreal engine, but Epic has no jurisdiction within other people's games made with the unreal engine, they can't for example put a legal condition that they can't make rpg games with the unreal engine. In the same way that Apple can't legally enforce rules when the operating system code is in run-time mode.

If someone rents you a car they can't put restrictions in the contract about on what areas you allowed to go with the car, it's a violation of personality, privacy and free expression and possible many other criminal things... If that “someone” is one of the two people renting cars the problem is even more pronounced.

“Maybe” the contract laws allow it but it's a criminal offense.
 
In your city example, there would be nothing to stop people from going to a mall in the next city down the road and then bringing back the items they bought from that other city.

That would be truth, if it was possible to install third party software to Apple phones. Which isnt. The only way to install anything is via their app store. And that means you are forced to be in their store. Thats monopoly.
on both comments the answer is the same:

There is no monopoly. People can always choose Android or other OS based on Android, Apple is not the only company.

On the Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo ecosystem, BMW, Mercedes, tesla, etc you have to go with their ecosystem. Why should Apple be different (and I have no iPhone or iPad but I understand them)?

- if they built the base
- if they maintain the base
- why would they offer for free a road for the competition?

Ok, open to 3rd party stores but charge your share.
 
on both comments the answer is the same:

There is no monopoly. People can always choose Android or other OS based on Android, Apple is not the only company.

On the Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo ecosystem, BMW, Mercedes, tesla, etc you have to go with their ecosystem. Why should Apple be different (and I have no iPhone or iPad but I understand them)?

- if they built the base
- if they maintain the base
- why would they offer for free a road for the competition?

Ok, open to 3rd party stores but charge your share.

Those stores are monopolies within their ecosystem too. They aren't different. There just isn't anyone complaining about them. I was referring to the store being a monopoly within it's ecosystem. Not that the ecosystem doesn't have have competition. You believe they should be allowed to have a monopoly within their ecosystem and I do not agree. It's not a matter of who is right about how it is, but a matter of opinion about how it should be.
 
Back