Apple suffered a major setback in its legal battle with Epic Games. Despite winning previous cases, Apple continued to fight on the one point it lost, defying the courts by ignoring the ruling’s spirit.
The conflict began five years ago when Epic Games deliberately provoked Apple into a lawsuit. By sneaking its own purchasing system into the iOS version of Fortnite, Epic violated its agreement with Apple to set the stage for a lawsuit. Apple responded by removing Fortnite from the App Store, leading to accusations of anti-competitive behavior and violation of antitrust laws.
During the legal battle, Apple terminated Epic’s developer account and compared their behavior to shoplifting. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Epic’s motion to force Apple to restore Fortnite to the App Store, stating they created the harm themselves.
Judge Rogers ultimately ruled in favor of Apple on nine out of ten claims but found them guilty of anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws related to their “anti-steering” rules. An injunction was issued prohibiting Apple from blocking links to other payment methods.
Apple appealed the injunction and won a stay, but after losing the appeal, they announced a 27% commission on purchases made outside the App Store. Epic Games accused Apple of malicious compliance, leading to a ruling by Judge Rogers prohibiting Apple from charging any commissions on off-app purchases.
Judge Rogers criticized Apple’s behavior, accusing them of willful violation of the injunction and anticompetitive pricing. She referred the matter to the US Attorney for possible criminal contempt charges.
The Final Injunction
Judge Rogers issued a new injunction expanding on the original terms to prevent Apple from engaging in further anticompetitive behavior. Apple is prohibited from imposing commissions or fees on off-app purchases, restricting developers’ links or calls to action, or interfering with consumers’ choice to use alternative purchasing methods. The ruling also sanctions Apple for abuse of attorney-client privilege and possible contempt charges, emphasizing the seriousness of the matter.
