Apple Wins Antitrust Battle With Epic Games
In today’s decision, the appeals court panel affirmed the district court’s denial of antitrust liability and its corresponding rejection of Epic’s illegality defense to Apple’s breach of contract counter-claim, the ruling said. However, it also noted that the district court had erred in defining the relevant antitrust market and in holding that Apple’s DPLA (Developer Program Licensing Agreement) fell outside of the scope of the antitrust law known as the Sherman Act.
But it said those errors were ultimately “harmless” and that Epic, regardless, had “failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive alternative means for Apple to accomplish the procompetitive justifications supporting iOS’s walled- garden ecosystem.”
In other words, while these types of contracts can be within the scope of a Sherman Act claim, that wasn’t relevant to the court’s decision in this case.
Fortunately, the court’s positive decision rejecting Apple’s anti-steering provisions frees iOS developers to send consumers to the web to do business with them directly there. We’re working on next steps.
Apple was ordered to implement App Store changes that will allow developers to use metadata buttons, links, and other calls to action to direct customers to purchasing mechanisms outside of the App Store , paving the way for developers to implement alternate payment options.
[…]
According to Apple, the proposed App Store changes could “upset the careful balance between developers and customers provided by the App Store,” resulting in irreparable harm to Apple and consumers. Apple also said that it needed time to figure out the “complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological, and economic issues” that the update would cause.
Previously:
- Epic v. Apple Appellate Hearing
- Dutch Anti-Steering Ruling for Dating Apps
- Apple Wins Delay on Anti-Steering Injuction
- Apple Denied Anti-Steering Stay
- Apple Appeals Anti-Steering Ruling in Epic Case
- The Epic Anti-Steering Injunction Is Narrow
- Anti-Steering Ruling in Epic v. Apple
- Relaxing Anti-Steering Rules for Reader Apps
- Cameron v. Apple Settlement
Update (2023-04-26): Here is the actual opinion from Judge Smith.
1 Comment RSS · Twitter · Mastodon
My niece once fell for a subscription scam on the App Store and the swiftness with which it was resolved by Apple was impressive.
I doubt it would have been as easy with Google, and I don't think for a second she would have gotten a refund had the payment been done on a website.
The question is if she would have been able to pay for it, using her father's credit card, if it wasn't for the one click payment system that an app store provides.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
