Largely finding Apple’s big commission cut to be ok, the judge gives Apple the win on its counterclaims and rules that Epic must pay 30 percent of all Fortnite revenue it’s collected since August 2020.īut Apple doesn’t walk away from this case unscathed because Rogers does find that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws. The Court does not find that it is impossible only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.”
#Apple vs epic final verdict trial#
“The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers defines the market (valued at $100 billion) as digital mobile gaming transactions and finds that while Apple “enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct.”
A trial was held last May with the outcome potentially influencing the future of streaming since apps like Disney+ and HBO Max often rely on intermediaries like Roku and Amazon while selling premium access to just released movies.Īpple's AirPods Start at Just $99 As Part of Latest Amazon Promotion Apple responded that Epic had breached the terms of being in the App Store. Apple fired back by booting Fortnite from its App Store, which then led to litigation. The suit was brought a year ago by Epic Games upon the Fortnite maker’s attempt to bypass the 30 percent commission that Apple takes on in-app purchases.
#Apple vs epic final verdict how to#
Apple has escaped the determination that it is a monopolist, but thanks to conduct that a judge finds to be anti-competitive, Apple must now allow developers to tell consumers how to make purchases outside of apps. In a highly anticipated decision, a California federal judge has handed down a nuanced ruling with respect to how Apple controls its app platform.
0 kommentar(er)
