Epic Games amplifies antitrust complaint against Apple in the UK

AppleInsider

Epic Games has widened its legal dispute with Apple, submitting a new complaint in the U.K. that slams the decision to remove "Fortnite" from the App Store.

Credit: Epic Games

The complaint, filed with the U.K. antitrust tribunal and made public Thursday, claims that Apple's move to pull "Fortnite" from the App Store was unlawful. It also alleges that Apple abused its "dominant position," Bloomberg reported.

Epic makes three specific claims of anti-competitive practices in the filing: Apple reserving itself as the sole channel for app distribution on iOS; using its dominant position to charge "unfair prices" for distribution; and Apple's response to Epic's introduction of "price competition."

The complaint asks the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal to order Apple to remove the restrictions on third-party payments within iOS apps. It also seeks an order restraining Apple from further action against Epic games and the reinstatement of the studio's developer account, among other forms of relief. Alongside the complaint against Apple, Epic Games also lodged a similar filing accusing Google of anti-competitive practices.

In a statement to AppleInsider, Epic Games' Tera Randall said that "we believe that this is an important argument to make on behalf of consumers and developers in the UK and around the world who are impacted by Apple and Google's misuse of market power."

"Epic is not seeking damages from Apple or Google in the UK, Australia or the US, it is simply seeking fair access and competition that will benefit all consumers," Randall said.

The filing marks the first move by Epic to reinstate "Fortnite" to the App Store in the U.K. But it's only the latest volley in an ongoing legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games.

The dustup started in August 2020, when Epic Games implemented a direct payment system in "Fortnite" that bypassed Apple's 30% commission on in-app purchases. That system violated Apple's developer guidelines, prompting the Cupertino tech giant to remove the app.

Immediately after Apple pulled "Fortnite," Epic launched a marketing campaign and antitrust lawsuit against the company. Although Epic's request for an emergency restraining order reinstating "Fortnite" to the App Store was failed, Apple was barred from making any moves against Epic Games' Unreal Engine. The saga has been ongoing since.

In November 2020, Epic Games also launched a lawsuit against Apple in Australia. Competition regulators in Germany were also said to be monitoring the situation in September 2020.

Apple's 30% commission has also attracted criticism from lawmakers and other companies. The company has since debuted a program that lowers that cut of in-app purchases to 15% for developers paid less than $1 million annually.

kuyangkoh

Pay up Apple

crosslad

Should Amazon be told to let manufacturers sell their products on Amazon free of charge?  If you want to sell your goods in someone’s store you have to give them the opportunity to make a profit. 

ionicle

Should be thrown out of UK courts, not a British matter, an American fight between two American companies that only had mild consiquences in the UK.
Not our fight, not our problem, doesnt need our mediation, although Apple was right and Epic was wrong, but still that needs to be settled in the country of origin, its not like our courts can tell Apple what to do in America anyway due to jurastictions etc.

mwhite

Kuyangkoh said:

Pay up Apple

Haha yea right!!!!!!

chickenortheegg

buying through apple in-app purchases is much better user experience. I am confident my kids can only "ask to buy" and me or my wife can then approve / reject. Epic games Direct Payment means I have to store my card details on my kids devices and I no longer have control of what they purchase / spend.

Apples payment system is much easier then any of the other platforms such as Nintendo & Sony Playstation

crowley

ionicle said:

Should be thrown out of UK courts, not a British matter, an American fight between two American companies that only had mild consiquences in the UK.
Not our fight, not our problem, doesnt need our mediation, although Apple was right and Epic was wrong, but still that needs to be settled in the country of origin, its not like our courts can tell Apple what to do in America anyway due to jurastictions etc.

Apple operates different app stores in different countries, we don't use the US store in the UK.  So jurisdiction applies locally.

gc_uk

crosslad said:

Should Amazon be told to let manufacturers sell their products on Amazon free of charge?  If you want to sell your goods in someone’s store you have to give them the opportunity to make a profit. 

That’s a straw man argument. The question ought to be why are Apple allowed to prevent other companies from selling items on their own platforms and the price they can charge. 

Also, Apple don’t charge for all apps. Many are free. How would you translate that to your example?

edited January 2021

gc_uk

ChickenOrTheEgg said:

buying through apple in-app purchases is much better user experience. I am confident my kids can only "ask to buy" and me or my wife can then approve / reject. Epic games Direct Payment means I have to store my card details on my kids devices and I no longer have control of what they purchase / spend.

Apples payment system is much easier then any of the other platforms such as Nintendo & Sony Playstation

That’s fine, you can still purchase through the App Store, but other consumers may want to have the choice to purchase through Epic’s store instead. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do what they want, when you can make your choice?

gc_uk

ionicle said:

Should be thrown out of UK courts, not a British matter, an American fight between two American companies that only had mild consiquences in the UK.
Not our fight, not our problem, doesnt need our mediation, although Apple was right and Epic was wrong, but still that needs to be settled in the country of origin, its not like our courts can tell Apple what to do in America anyway due to jurastictions etc.

Issues that affect consumers in the UK should be decided in a US court?

gc_uk

I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?

edited January 2021

launfall

gc_uk said:

crosslad said:

Should Amazon be told to let manufacturers sell their products on Amazon free of charge?  If you want to sell your goods in someone’s store you have to give them the opportunity to make a profit. 

That’s a straw man argument. The question ought to be why are Apple allowed to prevent other companies from selling items on their own platforms and the price they can charge. 

Also, Apple don’t charge for all apps. Many are free. How would you translate that to your example?

FYI: 30% of $0 is $0...that why they don't charge for Free apps. The cost to operate the AppStore is not insubstantial. Epic wants to be in the store but wants to pay Apple nothing. I suggest you try running a business where you have to give away the product that is on your shelves but still pay to build the store, pay the rent and the staff.  You won't last a day.

launfall

gc_uk said:

I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?

I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out. 

crowley

launfall said:

gc_uk said:

crosslad said:

Should Amazon be told to let manufacturers sell their products on Amazon free of charge?  If you want to sell your goods in someone’s store you have to give them the opportunity to make a profit. 

That’s a straw man argument. The question ought to be why are Apple allowed to prevent other companies from selling items on their own platforms and the price they can charge. 

Also, Apple don’t charge for all apps. Many are free. How would you translate that to your example?

FYI: 30% of $0 is $0...that why they don't charge for Free apps. The cost to operate the AppStore is not insubstantial. Epic wants to be in the store but wants to pay Apple nothing. I suggest you try running a business where you have to give away the product that is on your shelves but still pay to build the store, pay the rent and the staff.  You won't last a day.

You will if you're also selling 100 million hardware units a year that drive people into your store. 

The app store ecosystem is an asset for Apple, it helps them sell hardware.  Apple, in the form of Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, and others, have said this themselves many times.  For a long time they were also saying that the app store was only breaking even, and that they were happy with that as its purpose wasn't to generate revenue, but to add value.

The poverty argument doesn't really work for a company with among the largest corporate incomes in the world.

qwerty52

gc_uk said:

ChickenOrTheEgg said:

buying through apple in-app purchases is much better user experience. I am confident my kids can only "ask to buy" and me or my wife can then approve / reject. Epic games Direct Payment means I have to store my card details on my kids devices and I no longer have control of what they purchase / spend.

Apples payment system is much easier then any of the other platforms such as Nintendo & Sony Playstation

That’s fine, you can still purchase through the App Store, but other consumers may want to have the choice to purchase through Epic’s store instead. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do what they want, when you can make your choice?

If you want to sell your own potatoes in your own store it is perfectly fine,
but if you want me to sell your potatoes in my own store, then you have to know that:

1) You CAN NOT force me to do that if I don’t want 
2) If I DECIDE to sell your potatoes in my store, it is more than obvious
that you have to pay me a commission.

What Epic is trying to achieve in the court, is forcing AppStore to sell their potatoes without paying any commission!

So, you think this is fair?

crowley

qwerty52 said:

gc_uk said:

ChickenOrTheEgg said:

buying through apple in-app purchases is much better user experience. I am confident my kids can only "ask to buy" and me or my wife can then approve / reject. Epic games Direct Payment means I have to store my card details on my kids devices and I no longer have control of what they purchase / spend.

Apples payment system is much easier then any of the other platforms such as Nintendo & Sony Playstation

That’s fine, you can still purchase through the App Store, but other consumers may want to have the choice to purchase through Epic’s store instead. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do what they want, when you can make your choice?

If you want to sell your own potatoes in your own store it is perfectly fine,
but if you want me to sell your potatoes in my own store, then you have to know that:

1) You CAN NOT force me to do that if I don’t want 
2) If I DECIDE to sell your potatoes in my store, it is more than obvious
that you have to pay me a commission.

What Epic is trying to achieve in the court, is forcing AppStore to sell their potatoes without paying any commission!

So, you think this is fair?

Epic cannot have their own iOS app store.  If they were able to then your first sentence would make sense and we'd have an acceptable solution.  But they can't.

gc_uk

launfall said:

gc_uk said:

crosslad said:

Should Amazon be told to let manufacturers sell their products on Amazon free of charge?  If you want to sell your goods in someone’s store you have to give them the opportunity to make a profit. 

That’s a straw man argument. The question ought to be why are Apple allowed to prevent other companies from selling items on their own platforms and the price they can charge. 

Also, Apple don’t charge for all apps. Many are free. How would you translate that to your example?

FYI: 30% of $0 is $0...that why they don't charge for Free apps. The cost to operate the AppStore is not insubstantial. Epic wants to be in the store but wants to pay Apple nothing. I suggest you try running a business where you have to give away the product that is on your shelves but still pay to build the store, pay the rent and the staff.  You won't last a day.

So Apple host free apps in the store and make nothing from it, but when they don’t get revenue from Epic for their free app it’s a problem for them? In effect when Apple have a free app in the store they’re doing exactly the thing you describe. The fact you can’t see the association between two sentences in your own post shows there will be a problem continuing a sensible discussion with you. 

gc_uk

launfall said:

gc_uk said:

I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?

I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out. 

Did you support Apple denying their users access to alternative stores on the users devices? Do you use any of the applications thrown off the App Store? If the answer to either question is no, you aren’t part of the group I’m commenting on. 

chadbag

launfall said:

gc_uk said:

I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?

I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out. 

I didn’t realize Twitter, Facebook, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc have been thrown off the App Store.  

nicholfd

gc_uk said:

crosslad said:

Should Amazon be told to let manufacturers sell their products on Amazon free of charge?  If you want to sell your goods in someone’s store you have to give them the opportunity to make a profit. 

That’s a straw man argument. The question ought to be why are Apple allowed to prevent other companies from selling items on their own platforms and the price they can charge. 

You answered your own question, "on their own platform".  Apple developed, supports and provides "their own platform".  Their platform, their rules.  Don't like them, make your own or use some other "platform".

edited January 2021

nicholfd

gc_uk said:

I wonder how people who defended Apple for not allowing applications being installed from different App Stores feel now the apps for the social media platforms they love are being kicked off the store?

LOL - the "social media platform" you are referring violated Apple's terms of agreement.  Read up on contracts.  You agree to them and you either follow them or you suffer the consequence - "being kicked off".