Epic Games claims Apple led court astray on competition, security & more
Epic Games has filed a new brief in its case against Apple, claiming that not only did Apple mislead the court, but the judge erred in her interpretation of the market.
Epic Games marketing
The game company on Wednesday filed an appeal reply and cross-appeal response brief in the Epic Games v. Apple legal battle. In its argument, Epic Games alleges that the U.S. District Court "committed multiple legal errors in rejecting Epic's Sherman Act claims."
In its original lawsuit, Epic claimed that Apple violated the Sherman Act by denying it access to the App Store, which it claimed as an essential facility. The Sherman Act dictates free commerce and competition across the U.S.
Additionally, Epic Games claims that the court made a mistake in sustaining Apple's restrictions.
"The court found substantial anticompetitive effects but erroneously credited justifications that do not advance competition and ignored its own factual findings establishing less restrictive alternatives," the brief reads.
Epic also tries to counter an argument that its demands would weaken Apple's iOS security. It claims that Apple touts the security of the Mac, which does not have the same protections as iOS. However, during the trial, Apple made it clear that it finds the level of malware on macOS unacceptable.
U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled mostly in Apple's favor back in September 2021 after a lengthy trial. She handed Apple a win on basically every point except the company's ban on steering, or allowing developers to communicate with customers about cheaper subscription options.
Apple has successfully obtained a stay on an injunction that would force it to allow steering within apps. Beyond that, both Apple and Epic Games have appealed the ruling.
In its own brief submitted to the court in March, Apple argued that Judge Gonzalez Roger's ruling should stand because Epic Games' original lawsuit was badly flawed and because the company failed to prove wrongdoing on Apple's part.
Read on AppleInsider
Epic Games marketing
The game company on Wednesday filed an appeal reply and cross-appeal response brief in the Epic Games v. Apple legal battle. In its argument, Epic Games alleges that the U.S. District Court "committed multiple legal errors in rejecting Epic's Sherman Act claims."
In its original lawsuit, Epic claimed that Apple violated the Sherman Act by denying it access to the App Store, which it claimed as an essential facility. The Sherman Act dictates free commerce and competition across the U.S.
Additionally, Epic Games claims that the court made a mistake in sustaining Apple's restrictions.
"The court found substantial anticompetitive effects but erroneously credited justifications that do not advance competition and ignored its own factual findings establishing less restrictive alternatives," the brief reads.
Epic also tries to counter an argument that its demands would weaken Apple's iOS security. It claims that Apple touts the security of the Mac, which does not have the same protections as iOS. However, during the trial, Apple made it clear that it finds the level of malware on macOS unacceptable.
U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled mostly in Apple's favor back in September 2021 after a lengthy trial. She handed Apple a win on basically every point except the company's ban on steering, or allowing developers to communicate with customers about cheaper subscription options.
Apple has successfully obtained a stay on an injunction that would force it to allow steering within apps. Beyond that, both Apple and Epic Games have appealed the ruling.
In its own brief submitted to the court in March, Apple argued that Judge Gonzalez Roger's ruling should stand because Epic Games' original lawsuit was badly flawed and because the company failed to prove wrongdoing on Apple's part.
Epic's Response and Reply Brief by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd
(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "https://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();Read on AppleInsider
Comments
You're exposed as idiots already, just pack up your little charade and go home.
So that means their current legal maneuvers are purely for media/public consumption. They know they have no case, but Congress hasn't passed any legislation yet so they have to continue the play the victim.
This Epic situation sounds uncomfortably familiar.
As worded in the article, you are 100% correct. But that was not Epic original claim in the lawsuit. What Epic was claiming was that the 30% commission they had to pay Apple on IAP, amounted to restraint of trade and an abuse of a "monopoly" Apple had with the App Store because it's the only way to install apps on iOS. Thus violation the Sherman Act.
What the Judge almost immediately threw out was the notion that the App Store was a "monopoly" on iOS. This because one can not (or it's nearly impossible to) have a "monopoly" that is covered under the Sherman Act, when the "relevant market" is narrowed down to just one brand. Otherwise, every company would have a "monopoly" when the "market" is narrowed down to just their brand. So without any proof (from Epic) that Apple App Store is a "monopoly" under the Sherman Act, Apple was not in violation of any anti-trust laws by charging a 30% commission. Even if the Judge questioned the "high" commission, she saw nothing illegal about it and said that the courts can not punish a company just for being successful. This is not the EU after all.
The only questionable ruling by the Judge is that Apple App Store policy of not allowing developers to advertise other ways to pay for IAP, within their apps, was a violation of California Unfair Competition Law. CA UCL is a catch all law that allows the courts to charge a business for "unfair competition", if they only think the practice was "illegal"but no other anti-trust laws applies. There is absolutely no mention of any violations even resembling what Apple was doing (by not allowing developers to advertise other ways to pay for the IAP with in their app) cited in CA UCL. The Judge just felt like this practice was "illegal" and is covered under the UCL. And as pointed out by several law firms in their opinion of this ruling by the Federal Judge, it is highly improbable that an entity can be in violation of CA UCL and not been found guilty of violating any other or Federal anti-trust laws. They cited many cases involving businesses being charged only under CA UCL, that were thrown out by the courts, because the business was not found guilty of violating any other or Federal anti-trust laws.
https://www.winston.com/en/legal-glossary/california-unfair-competition-law.html
https://www.reedsmith.com/fr/perspectives/2001/02/for-plaintiffs-all-the-benefits-of-a-class-action
Apple stands a very good chance of winning their appeal on this matter.
What I don't understand is .... didn't the lawyers representing Epic attend law school (in the US) and pass? Don't they have computers where they can "google" ... "Sherman Act", "monopoly", "relevant market", "completion " and the likes? My only conclusion is that Epic's lawyers are going about their business under the notion that ..... "a fool and his money are soon parted". And Sweeney is one big rich fool that these lawyers are not going to release, after they had the fortune to catch him the first time.
I've previously cited the BlueMail ruling in the U.S. which happened around the same time as the original Epic/Apple court case. BlueMail's antitrust lawsuit was dismissed with the judge citing BlueMail's own marketing which touted how successful they were on other platforms, i.e., how can they claim "unreasonable" restraint of trade when they obviously did a lot of trade with their app elsewhere. The same legal reasoning applies to Fortnite as well. They made the vast majority of their $$ on consoles/PCs. The app was not originally developed for mobile at all.
You also don't run external equipment on iOS like Davinci resolve, Avid and raid systems. All the drivers are not Apples.