In a dramatic turn of events in the ongoing legal saga between Epic Games and Apple, Epic Games, the maker of the widely popular video game “Fortnite,” has urged a federal judge to hold Apple in contempt. The accusation comes amidst claims of Apple’s alleged violation of an injunction governing the operation of its App Store.
The clash between the two tech giants dates back to 2020 when Epic Games lodged a complaint against Apple, alleging antitrust violations. Central to Epic’s argument was Apple’s requirement for consumers to exclusively obtain apps through its App Store, coupled with hefty commissions of up to 30% on in-app purchases, per Reuters.
Following a September 2021 injunction, Apple was mandated to permit app developers to integrate links and buttons directing consumers to alternative payment methods for digital content. However, Epic Games, in a recent filing with the federal court in Oakland, California, asserted that Apple has blatantly disregarded this injunction.
Related: EU Authorities Probe Deeper into Apple and Epic Games’ Escalating Conflict
Epic Games accused Apple of imposing new fees and regulations, rendering the provided links “commercially unusable.” Additionally, Apple purportedly persists in categorically prohibiting buttons and still prevents certain apps from directing consumers to alternative purchasing channels.
“Apple’s goal is clear: to prevent purchasing alternatives from constraining the supracompetitive fees it collects on purchases of digital goods and services,” Epic Games stated in the filing. The gaming company lambasted Apple’s alleged compliance as nothing but a facade.
The latest development intensifies the protracted legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, underscoring the high-stakes nature of the clash. The outcome of this showdown holds significant implications not only for the two companies involved but also for the broader digital ecosystem and the future of app distribution and monetization.
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