In the ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, the former has vehemently opposed the latter’s demand for a staggering $73 million in legal fees, calling it an “overreach” by the tech giant.
Epic Games, the creator of the immensely popular game “Fortnite,” filed a response to Apple’s request for legal fees in the contentious antitrust dispute. The clash centers on Apple’s control over transactions within iOS applications and its distribution policies. While the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined appeals from both parties, it upheld a decision that mandated certain changes to Apple’s App Store while rejecting the majority of Epic’s claims.
In a court filing on Friday, Epic urged U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to reject Apple’s demand for reimbursement of legal costs. The gaming company argued that prevailing defendants, like Apple, should not be entitled to recover attorney compensation for successfully defending against antitrust claims.
Related: Epic Games v. Apple: A Case Summary
Both Epic Games and Apple enlisted the services of prestigious law firms, including Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Weil, Gotshal & Manges for Apple, and Cravath, Swaine & Moore for Epic. Despite the high stakes and substantial legal resources involved, Epic declined to comment on the matter, while Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Epic Games challenged Apple’s $73.4 million fee demand, contending that it was excessive. The gaming company asserted that Apple should be entitled to a much smaller amount, primarily related to Epic’s breach of Apple’s developer agreement. Epic clarified that it did not contest the breach-of-contract claim, which was not a litigated issue during the proceedings.
The battle between Epic Games and Apple underscores broader concerns about the power dynamics within the tech industry, particularly regarding app distribution and marketplace dominance. The outcome of this legal dispute could have significant implications for both companies and the broader app ecosystem.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand