A joint investigation letter filed April 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reveals problems between Facebook and Apple`s legal team. Apple requested a “limited number of documents” needed to cross-examine Facebook`s Vivek Sharma. Epic did not mention Google in the blog post or EU complaint, although Google removed “Fortnite” from the Play Store at the same time and for the same reason as Apple. The post also hinted that Epic Games was forced into this dispute after Apple`s actions, but did not mention that CEO Tim Sweeney admitted to spending months on a “battle plan” before. Epic closed a $1 billion funding round on April 13 and raised additional funds for the company ahead of litigation. Judge Rogers` decision in Epic-Apple lawsuit could cause problems in the U.S. Epic could not prove that Apple violated antitrust laws or that it was “an illegal monopoly.” In antitrust cases, the term “relevant market” is important. It is legal language for: what exact part of the economy are we talking about? Epic has described Apple`s IAP system as a glorified payment processor with excessive fees, arguing that Apple illegally ties IAP to the entire App Store. According to Epic, developers should be able to offer multiple payment processing options or opt out of Apple`s payment system altogether. Apple argued Thursday in court documents that appeals filed by Epic Games did not point to legal errors by a U.S.
District Judge who ruled last year that the iPhone maker did not violate antitrust laws with its App Store. Instead, Apple cited the many times the judge said Epic had “failed to prove the facts of its case,” “not showing,” and “not proving.” The complaint filed by Epic on January 14 in the United Kingdom was dropped on February 22 following a decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Roth J. ruled that Epic`s application could not be properly heard in the UK because the court lacked jurisdiction. However, for readers outside of these two companies, Justice Gonzalez Rogers` opinion has much to offer. Rogers clearly thinks much of the behavior of Epic and Apple is stupid, and that many of the arguments of both companies are wrong. But it seriously examines all these arguments and presents a blueprint for other legal arguments about mobile platforms, app monopolies, and modern antitrust law. Apple argued that Epic`s integration of direct payments was intentional to trigger the legal rush, which Epic`s lawyers later admitted was necessary to force Apple`s hand.
On November 18, Epic filed a lawsuit in Australian federal court, taking the lawsuit to a new continent. Apple has been accused of “significantly lessening” competition and “abusing market power,” reflecting the arguments of its U.S. lawsuit. For Apple, Gonzalez Rogers confirmed that the overall structure of the App Store is legal, a big win for the tech giant. She also said Apple doesn`t have an illegal monopoly on how developers can process payments for mobile games, which Apple applauded. On June 26, Apple`s legal team filed a court filing consisting of a copy of the NCAA v. Alston Supreme Court decision. The filing was intended for Justice Rogers because it provides “guidance” for her future decision. Apple filed its final filing in Apple v.
Epic in progress, which takes place before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Apple and Epic Games decided to appeal the initial decision because neither company was happy with the outcome. Epic declined to comment beyond its existing legal filings. As a lawsuit in Australia was not enough for Epic Games, the company took its lawsuit to the country`s regulator on February 4. He told the ACCC that Apple`s “unbridled market power” stifles competition and innovation, artificially inflating the price of iPhone and iPad apps. Gonzalez Rogers` finding is another reason why Epic was unsuccessful against maintaining the monopoly or restricting the commercial claims discussed above, as two of them dealt specifically with DPI. It also says the IAP is not a standalone product, so Apple is not illegally tying it to the App Store, which denies two other claims Sherman and Cartwright Act.
A federal judge on Friday issued a long-awaited ruling in Fortnite maker Epic Games` legal battle with Apple over its App Store policies. Just like the US fight, Epic is not seeking damages against Apple in Australia. The editorial content promotes a “new era” of “PUBG Mobile” and is particularly ironic amid the ongoing legal battle, as “PUBG Mobile” is created using Epic Games` Unreal engine. Apple was also supposed to shut down Epic Games` Unreal Engine developer account, which is separate from the one that manages “Fortnite,” but a judge blocked that alleged retaliation. “The Court does not consider this impossible; only that Epic Games has failed in its burden of showing that Apple is an illegal monopoly,” the decision reads. A week later, Sweeney acknowledged the clear answer to Epic`s demands while taking a hit at the decision to hand over the answer to Apple`s legal team to create “such a self-righteous and self-serving screed.” Epic`s decision to introduce a payment processing option for “Fortnite” was deliberate, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney confirmed in a Feb. 10 interview. Months were spent on a battle plan that began in August 2020. Sweeney further claims that the effort is aimed at promoting free markets and that the company was willing to invest heavily in an attempt to transform the software industry. He did not reveal how much in legal fees or lost sales the project has cost so far, but admitted it has cost “a lot” of leadership time.
