The appeals court gave a strong nod to Apple’s argument that it needs to closely police the applications that run on its ubiquitous phones to protect users against fraudsters, hackers, malware and spyware. “Unless the correct relevant market is identified, one cannot properly assess anticompetitive effects, procompetitive justifications, and the satisfaction of procompetitive justifications through less anticompetitive means,” US Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas wrote. One appeals court judge dissented from that part of the ruling, saying the case should go back to Rogers to re-analyze it using the relevant market.
The appeals court said the lower court “erred” in defining the appropriate antitrust market but concluded that was “harmless” and Epic failed to “show 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.” Read More: Apple-Epic App Store Legal Battle Worries US Antitrust Enforcers The judge, however, didn’t see the need for third-party app stores or to push Apple to revamp policies over app developer fees.
#Epic vs apple court hearing live trial
In September 2021, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concluded that Apple’s policies prevent consumers from getting cheaper prices but rejected Epic’s claims that the App Store is run like a monopoly in violation of federal antitrust law.įollowing a three-week trial in Oakland, California, Rogers ordered the technology giant to allow developers of mobile applications steer consumers to outside payment methods, granting an injunction sought by Epic. “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 respectfully disagree with the court’s ruling on the one remaining claim under state law and are considering further review.Įpic Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney tweeted that although Apple prevailed, at least the appeals court kept intact the portion of the 2021 ruling that sided with Epic.
“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,” the company said in an emailed statement. Instead, in this decision, we faithfully applied existing precedent to the facts.”Īpple hailed the outcome as a “resounding victory,” saying nine out of 10 claims were decided in its favor. “Our job as a federal court of appeals, however, is not to resolve that debate - nor could we even attempt to do so. “There is a lively and important debate about the role played in our economy and democracy by online transaction platforms with market power,” the three-judge panel said.
Read More: Epic Urges Court to Curb Apple’s ‘Dark Cloud’ of App Dominance The dispute began after Apple expelled the Fortnite game from the App Store because Epic created a workaround to paying a 30% fee on customers’ in-app purchases. The ruling comes as Apple has been making changes to the way the App Store operates to address developer concerns since Epic sued the company in 2020. The appeals panel upheld the judge’s ruling in Epic’s favor on California state law claims. Monday’s ruling by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court judge’s 2021 decision largely rejecting claims by Epic, the maker of Fortnite, that Apple’s online marketplace policies violated federal law because they ban third-party app marketplaces on its operating system. won an appeals court ruling upholding its App Store’s policies in an antitrust challenge brought by Epic Games Inc.
0 kommentar(er)
