The trial verdicts of the Apple-Epic Games are largely in Apple’s favor

A great Apple-Epic Games trial has now decided on Apple’s control over Apple’s own App Store and whether it was an unfair monopoly and it’s not great for Epic Games.

Judge Evan Gonzalez Rogers ruled in Apple’s favor in almost every case. Epic Games expected the tech giant’s App Store to be exclusive, with high prices for consumers and forcing developers to comply with all its rules to allow for Apple’s mobile devices.

Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the App Store was not exclusive and that Apple should not be punished for its success. And while the court is forcing Apple to allow developers to tell app users about alternative ways to pay for subscriptions and in-app purchases যা which may seem (and in some cases, Initially informed E.g.) A win for Epic – Apple will be allowed to continue most of the practice in the App Store Epic was fighting to shut it down.

“The court has upheld Apple’s support in all cases, except in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Act (Count Ten) and in its claim of only partially declared relief,” the judge wrote.

But you don’t have to take his word for it; Epic and Apple’s statements also reflect who the verdict was in favor of.

“Today’s ruling is not a victory for developers or consumers,” said Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic. Tweeted. “Epic is fighting for in-app payment methods for one billion consumers and fair competition between app stores.”

Apple said, “The court has confirmed that what we know all the time: the App Store does not violate the no-confidence law.”

A big reason for the decision was the definition of “market” which was the exclusive authority over Apple. This was a sticking point in the judgment: Apple argued that the market is all gaming platforms; Epic said the market is only Apple’s App Store. Gonzalez Rogers said during the trial that he thought the market could be all mobile gaming, which would include other mobile platforms and stores like Google Play. And this definition he went to in his judgment. It is difficult to prove that Apple is exclusive when the definition of market judge also includes its competitors.

The success of Epic Games was limited: although Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple should allow developers to show links to app users where they can shop outside the App Store (Apple cannot buy), Epic is still not allowed to use its own payment method on the app. , Or it may not have its own App Store on Apple devices.

“This measured remedy will increase competition, increase transparency, increase consumer choice and information while preserving Apple’s iOS ecosystem that has competitive support,” the judge wrote.

But Apple decided a few weeks ago (or was strongly pressured) to end the ban on telling users they could buy subscriptions and in-game items outside the App Store. So this ruling doesn’t really change anything for Apple now, and companies like Epic and Spotify already have on record that the ability to tell customers about their options isn’t good enough.

For Epic’s other claims, Gonzalez Rogers said the company had “overreacted” and could not prove that Apple was exclusive. This does not mean that Apple is not exclusive, or that other plaintiffs cannot argue better than that. Gonzalez Rogers added: “The trial record was not as perfect as it could have been in the context of distrustful behavior in the relevant market.” Apple charges a 30 percent commission for most subscriptions and in-app purchases, he said, “looking bloated” and “potential competitors.” But, since Epic was not challenging the amount of commission (there was only one fact), he was not able to rule on it.

So this would not be the final word in a civil lawsuit Apple and disbelief. U.S. lawmakers and regulators, as well as people in several other countries, are pressuring Apple, which they see as a possible violation of their no-confidence law. Apple is one of several big tech companies involved in the Biden administration’s big distrust push, including the appointment of Big Tech critic Lina Khan to the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The problem is also bipartisan: Republicans and Democrats are vocal opponents of Big Tech and have launched new no-confidence bills aimed at it, while the state attorney general rallied last year to sue Google for multiple no-confidence violations. Facebook has been sued by the FTC and almost every state for breach of trust – although the state attorney general’s version of the lawsuit was dropped.

Sen. Amy Klubutcher, one of the key figures in creating distrust in Big Tech, said the ruling showed that more no-confidence laws are needed.

“App stores raise serious concerns about competition,” Klubucher said in a statement. “While this ruling addresses some concerns, much more needs to be done. We need to pass federal laws on app store behavior to protect consumers, promote competition and encourage innovation.

Apple’s App Store’s arch-rival Spotify and the European Union’s anti-trust enforcement commission have complained about it, saying it was pleased that part of the ruling was against Apple’s anti-competitive and anti-steering rules, and hoped it would make further decisions.

“This and other developments around the world show that there is a strong need and speed for legislation to address this and many other unfair practices,” said Horatio Guterres, Spotify’s chief global affairs and chief legal officer. A statement

Epic’s stunt that stopped all this – installing a direct payment system on Fortnite that violates the rules of the App Store, which is booted from iOS and MacOS devices – the judge ruled in Apple’s favor. Not only did he announce that Epic’s decision to cancel his contract with Epic was “legitimate, valid and enforceable”, he also ordered Epic to compensate Apple: the current day installments of percent of its revenue collected through direct payments banned from August 2020.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button