Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
64,416
32,244


Epic Games and Apple have been fighting over Apple's App Store rules since 2020, when Epic Games opted to blatantly violate the guidelines that prevent apps from avoiding the in-app purchase system. Epic Games did so with the aim of kicking off a long legal battle, but it has not gone in Epic's favor.

app-store-blue-banner-epic-1.jpg

In 2021, the judge overseeing the case sided with Apple, concluding that Apple was not violating antitrust law and was not a monopolist. Epic Games almost immediately appealed the ruling and claimed that the original court "reached the wrong answer" and "made multiple legal errors." Unfortunately for Epic Games, the appeals court today sided with Apple, upholding the original ruling.

According to Bloomberg, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Epic's claims that the App Store rules violate federal antitrust law by not allowing for third-party app marketplaces. This is largely a win for Apple, but the court did also uphold the original court's decision on Apple's anti-steering rules.

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.

"There is a lively and important debate about the role played in our economy and democracy by online transaction platforms with market power," said the appeals court. "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."

Apple has been able to put off making App Store updates until the conclusion of the appeals trial, as Apple had appealed the portion of the ruling that did not go in its favor. Apple will presumably need to make changes to the App Store at some point in the near future to comply with the court's ruling.

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.

In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said that the decision reaffirms its "resounding victory" against Epic Games.
Today's decision reaffirms Apple's resounding victory in this case, with nine of ten claims having been decided in Apple's favor. For the second time in two years, a federal court has ruled that Apple abides by antitrust laws at the state and federal levels. The App Store continues to promote competition, drive innovation, and expand opportunity, and we're proud of its profound contributions to both users and developers around the world. We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling on the one remaining claim under state law and are considering further review.
Though Apple said that it support the court's decision, the company does disagree with the ruling on the App Store changes, and says that it is "considering further review."

Article Link: Epic Games Loses Again in Battle With Apple Over App Store Rules
 
Last edited:

yellow8

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2017
533
1,039
Epic legal battle. Things move. Not sure it will lead to good things, but who knows...
 
  • Like
Reactions: k1121j

mrat93

macrumors 68020
Dec 30, 2006
2,296
3,082
Epic Fail! Epic games just need to give it up. It's a lost battle from their end. When will Epic games learn to realize?
Idk man. Things seem to be going pretty well for them in the EU. They’re getting sideloading this year.

I’d imagine that once people worldwide see what EU customers can do with their iPhones, there will be more demand for sideloading elsewhere. I’d be surprised if the US doesn’t have sideloading by iOS 19.
 

jayducharme

macrumors 601
Jun 22, 2006
4,576
6,177
The thick of it
I assume that Apple will have some freedom in how to implement the changes. If they implement the ability for apps to offer alternate payment methods, there would be nothing forcing a user to choose one over the other. If people wanted to pay through Apple, they could. Or if they wanted to pay some other way, they could. IMO, that would force everyone to offer the best transaction experience. Hopefully in the end, the consumer is the winner.
 

Realityck

macrumors G4
Nov 9, 2015
10,700
16,084
Silicon Valley, CA
Epic failure Yeah!


On Epic’s appeal, the 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 panel held that the district court erred as a matter of law in defining the relevant antitrust market and in holding that a non-negotiated contract of adhesion, such as the DPLA, falls outside the scope of Sherman Act § 1, but those errors were harmless. The panel held that, independent of the district court’s errors, Epic failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive.

With Apple’s restrictions in place, users are free to decide which kind of app-transaction platform to use. Users who value security and privacy can select (by purchasing an iPhone) Apple’s closed platform and pay a marginally higher price for apps. Users who place a premium on low prices can (by purchasing an Android device) select one of the several open app-transaction platforms, which provide marginally less security and privacy. Apple’s restrictions create a heterogenous market for app-transaction platforms which, as a result, increases interbrand competition—the primary goal of antitrust law.

On Apple’s cross-appeal, the panel affirmed as to the district court’s UCL ruling in favor of Epic, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Epic was injured, err as a matter of law when applying California’s flexible liability standards, or abuse its discretion when fashioning equitable relief. Reversing in part, the panel held that the district court erred when it ruled that Apple was not entitled to attorney fees pursuant to the DPLA’s indemnification provision.
 
Last edited:

sw1tcher

macrumors 603
Jan 6, 2004
5,609
19,866
... but the court did also uphold the original court's decision on Apple's anti-steering rules.

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.
This is good for developers. But we know Apple will drag their feet on rolling this out for as long as they're legally able to per their statement that they will need time to figure out the "complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological, and economic issues" that the update would cause.


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.
"irreparable harm to Apple" and "economic issues" means taking a hit on their bottom line
 

coffeemilktea

macrumors 65816
Nov 25, 2022
1,040
4,321
I'm really looking forward to Tim Sweeney's inevitable 50-tweet long rant essay to make himself feel better, before he finds new and exciting ways to burn his Fortnite profits on losing legal battles. :p

(imagine buying Fortnite skins and knowing that all that money is going towards Epic's legal fees)
 

rp100

macrumors regular
Sep 15, 2016
233
614
Forget alternate app stores for the moment: why, 8 years after the initial release, am I still being prevented from installing custom watch faces on Apple Watch? Those “custom watch face” apps don’t count as they are a glorified app that has to stay active to operate as intended
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: DarkSam
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.