In an antitrust lawsuit between Apple and Epic Games in the United States, it was ruled that it was illegal to not allow links to payments other than in-app purchases. The ruling requires Apple to allow links to external payments on the App Store starting in December.
However, Apple won most of the other issues except for in-app purchases. In particular, it succeeded in obtaining a court ruling that it is not a monopoly on the App Store. Most of the App Store business models were recognized.
Immediately after the first trial judgment, Epic immediately announced its intention to appeal.
■ Judge Rogers “must also allow links to external purchasing processes”
Judge Yvonne González Rogers of the Oakland Branch of the Northern District Court for the Northern District of California, USA, ruled on the 10th (local time) that it was illegal to force only in-app purchases in the first instance of an antitrust lawsuit between Apple and Epic Games.
Judge Rogers ruled that “Apple shall not do anything that prevents developers from including external links or phone numbers that can be directly linked to purchases other than in-app purchases in the future.”
It also prohibited the use of information obtained through the app to communicate with customers.
This measure must be implemented within 90 days. Accordingly, from December 9th, links to payments other than in-app purchases must be allowed.
But on other issues, Apple won.
Judge Rogers ruled that running another payment system within Epic’s Fortnite app constituted a breach of contract with Apple.
As a result, Epic had to pay Apple 30% of the revenue generated through the method. Epic owes Apple $3.5 million.
■ “Apple cannot be regarded as a monopoly under the federal antitrust law”
Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected both sides’ arguments on market regulation, a central issue in the case.
He judged, “The market that is the subject of this lawsuit is not all games, nor is Apple’s internal system related to the App Store, but digital game transactions.” Based on these criteria, the ruling “could not conclude that Apple was a monopolist under federal or state antitrust laws.”
But Judge Rogers added, “Nevertheless, it was possible to establish that Apple had engaged in an anti-competitive act under the California Competition Law.”
Apple commented on the ruling as a “victory of the App Store model.”
According to foreign media outlets, Apple emphasized that “the court has confirmed that the App Store is not in violation of competition law.”
Related articles
Tim Sweeney, Epic’s CEO, tweeted, “This judgment is not a victory for developers or customers.”
Epic Games has made it clear that it intends to appeal.
