35 AG Appeal Decision Supporting Apple vs. Epic
Attorneys general from 34 states and the District of Columbia have appealed a California court ruling that overwhelmingly favored Apple in Epic’s fight against App Store fees, according to multiple reports.
Led by Utah, Microsoft also backed the appeal, joining AGs in filing amicus curiae briefs with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Biden administration also supported the appeal, with the antitrust division filing a brief.
“Apple’s behavior has harmed and harms mobile app developers and millions of citizens,” the states said. “Meanwhile, Apple continues to monopolize app distribution and in-app payment solutions for iPhones, stifle competition, and amass supercompetitive profits from the nearly trillion-dollar smartphone industry. per year.”
See also: Apple scores victory in case against Epic Games
Creator of the popular game Fortnite and many other titles, Epic has taken aim at Apple over the 15%-30% commission fee it charges developers for using its App Store and banning other means of providing its product to iPhone users. The lawsuit centered on allegations that Apple engaged in anticompetitive practices and violated antitrust laws.
The appeal and briefs follow the ruling of a U.S. District Judge in Oakland, Calif., which primarily supported Apple over Epic last year. This decision indicated that Apple’s commission rates and the required integrated payment system did not violate antitrust regulations.
Apple is expected to respond to the appeal in March, but reportedly said it was confident the court’s original ruling would stand and Epic’s appeal would ultimately be unsuccessful.
Read more: Epic Games mounts new appeal in case against Apple
The AGs argued in their papers that the lower court failed to consider the pros and cons of Apple’s App Store requirements in ruling that central antitrust regulation was not applicable in non-negotiable contracts. of Apple signed by the developers.
“Paradoxically, companies with sufficient market power to unilaterally impose contracts would be shielded from antitrust scrutiny — precisely the companies whose activities raise the most antitrust concerns,” they said.