[ad_1]
Apple-Epic Games’ extensive experience with Apple’s control over its own App Store and whether it’s an unfair monopoly now has a solution, and that’s not great for Epic Games.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers ruled in favor of Apple on almost all counts. Epic Games hoped to prove that the technology giant’s App Store was a monopoly, causing higher prices for consumers and forcing developers to follow all of its rules to be allowed on Apple’s mobile devices.
Gonzalez Rodgers ruled that the App Store is not a monopoly and that Apple should not be punished for its success. And while the court is forcing Apple to allow developers to tell app users about alternative ways they can pay for in-app subscriptions and purchases — which may seem like (and in some cases, was originally reported like) profit for Epic – Apple will be able to continue most of the App Store practices that Epic struggled to stop.
“The court found in favor of Apple on all counts, except for the violation of the California Unfair Competition Act (Count Ten) and only partially in relation to its claim for Declaratory Aid,” the judge wrote.
But you don’t have to take her word for it; Epic and Apple’s statements also reflect whose side the verdict is on.
“Today’s solution is not a victory for developers or consumers,” said Epic CEO Tim Sweeney. tweet. “Epic is fighting for fair competition between payment methods in apps and app stores for billions of users.”
“The court has confirmed what we know all along: The App Store does not violate antitrust laws,” Apple said.
A major factor in the decision was the definition of a “market” that Apple claims has a monopoly. This was an obstacle in the process: Apple claims that the market is just gaming platforms; Epic said the market is just Apple’s App Store. Gonzalez Rodgers said during the test that he believes the market could be entirely mobile games that will include other mobile platforms and stores such as Google Play. And this is the definition with which she adheres in her decision. It is difficult to prove that Apple is a monopoly when the judge’s definition of the market includes its competitors.
The only victory Epic Games achieved was limited: Although Gonzalez Rodgers ruled that Apple should allow developers to show app users links where they can make purchases outside the App Store (Apple purchases will not receive a share) Epic does not yet have the right to insert its own payment method into the app itself, nor can it set up its own app store on Apple devices.
“This measured drug will increase competition, increase transparency, increase consumer choice and information, while maintaining Apple’s iOS ecosystem, which has excuses for competition,” the judge wrote.
But Apple had already decided (or was under a lot of pressure) a few weeks ago to lift its ban on telling users they could buy subscriptions and in-game items outside the App Store. So this solution doesn’t really change anything for Apple now, and companies like Epic and Spotify have already signed up, saying the ability to tell customers about their alternatives isn’t good enough.
As for Epic’s other claims, Gonzalez Rodgers said the company was “exceeded” and could not prove that Apple was a monopolist. This does not necessarily mean that Apple is not a monopoly, nor that another plaintiff could not present a better argument that this is the case. Gonzalez Rodgers added: “The study was not as detailed in terms of antitrust behavior in the market as it could be.” potentially anti-competitive ’. But since Epic does not dispute the amount of the commission (only the fact that there is one), it cannot rule on it.
So this civil lawsuit will not be the last word on Apple and antitrust law. U.S. lawmakers and regulators, as well as those in several other countries, are pushing Apple to change what it sees as a possible breach of its antitrust laws. Apple is one of several major technology companies involved in the Biden administration’s major antitrust, which includes the appointment of Big Tech critic Lina Hahn as chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The issue is also bipartisan: Republican and Democratic lawmakers are staunch opponents of Big Tech and have begun introducing new antitrust bills aimed at it, while prosecutors have joined forces to prosecute Google for antitrust violations several times in the past year. Facebook has also been sued for violations of antitrust laws by the FTC and almost every country – although the version of the Attorney General’s case has been rejected.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has made antitrust law at Big Tech one of her main problems, said the decision shows more antitrust laws are needed.
“App stores raise serious competition concerns,” Klobuchar said in a statement. “Although the decision addresses some of these concerns, much more needs to be done. We need to pass federal legislation on the behavior of app stores to protect consumers, encourage competition and encourage innovation. “
Spotify, which was a staunch opponent of Apple’s App Store and complained to the European Union’s antitrust commission, said it was pleased with the part of the decision that said Apple’s conduct was anti-competitive and banned his rule of governance, and hoped that this would lead to more such decisions.
“This and other developments around the world show that there is a strong need and momentum for legislation to address these and many other unfair practices that are designed to harm competition and consumers,” said Horacio Gutierrez, Global Affairs Manager and Chief Legal Officer. Spotify. declaration.
As for the Epic cascade, which launched it all – the installation of a direct payment system in Fortnite, which was in violation of the rules of the App Store, which loaded it from iOS and macOS devices – the judge ruled in favor of Apple. Not only did it declare Apple’s decision to terminate its agreement with Epic “valid, legal and enforceable,” it also ordered Epic to pay damages to Apple: 30 percent of the revenue it collected through the banned direct payment system. from August 2020 installation to the present day.
[ad_2]
Source link