Apple Mostly, But Not Entirely, Wins Against Epic; No Antitrust Violation, But Must Tweak Practices To Comply With CA Law

from the antitrust-is-hard dept

If there’s something that’s been made clear over the last year or so in the world of antitrust it’s that just because some people don’t like big companies and their practices, that doesn’t mean it’s an antitrust violation. It rarely is. In the well, rather epic lawsuit that Epic brought against Apple, we initially described it as a contract negotiation by lawsuit and predicted that it didn’t seem likely to actually meet the bar for an antitrust violation. It seems that District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with us, rejecting the antitrust claims entirely. As the judge wrote:

Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately
conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court
finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit
margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial
record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct
decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that
it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal
monopolist.

Key to any antitrust ruling is the market definition and everyone always wants that definition to fall in their own favor. Those bringing antitrust lawsuits like to narrow down the market to basically “exactly what this company provides and no more,” while defendants try to define the market as broadly as possible. The judge rejected both Apple’s and Epic’s market definitions here and found something more reasonable in the middle — but in the end the definition helped Apple much more than it did Epic.

Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market
here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal
operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion
industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games’ motive in bringing this action. Having
penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games’ next target
and it views Apple as an impediment.

Further, the evidence demonstrates that most App Store revenue is generated by mobile
gaming apps, not all apps. Thus, defining the market to focus on gaming apps is appropriate.
Generally speaking, on a revenue basis, gaming apps account for approximately 70% of all App
Store revenues. This 70% of revenue is generated by less than 10% of all App Store consumers.
These gaming-app consumers are primarily making in-app purchases which is the focus of Epic
Games’ claims. By contrast, over 80% of all consumer accounts generate virtually no revenue,
as 80% of all apps on the App Store are free.

The ruling itself is a rather epic 185 pages, but the key point is what’s above. The judge knows this is going on appeal, and it seems like the massively thorough ruling is more about covering all the bases for the 9th Circuit judges, than for the parties in the case.

Almost all of the claims are dismissed with one partial exception. The court did find that Apple violates California’s unfair competition law. Epic doesn’t get a complete win on this claim either. The court notes that it failed to show any unlawful practices under California’s law, but some unfair ones. But even then the victory is somewhat limited, and many of Epic’s claims of unfairness fail as well. The only bit that succeeded regarded Apple’s anti-steering provisions. These are the rules Apple places on app store developers preventing them from telling people about ways to pay outside of the iOS App Store.

As explained before, Apple uses anti-steering provisions prohibiting apps
from including “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to
purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase,” and from “encourag[ing] users to use a
purchasing method other than in-app purchase” either “within the app or through
communications sent to points of contact obtained from account registrations within the app (like
email or text).” Thus, developers cannot communicate lower prices on other platforms either within iOS or to users obtained from the iOS platform. Apple’s general policy also prevents
developers from informing users of its 30% commission.

The court found that a step too far — and frankly, that makes sense. It was always a really shitty thing to do in the first place, and extremely anti-consumer. And the court found that even if there weren’t actual antitrust violations by Apple, the anti-steering provisions “threaten an incipient violation of an antitrust law” by restricting information from consumers.

Thus the court grants the only remedy to Epic: an injunction against such practices:

While Apple’s conduct does not fall within the confines of traditional antitrust law,
the conduct falls within the purview of an incipient antitrust violation with particular
anticompetitive practices which have not been justified. Apple contractually enforces silence, in
the form of anti-steering provisions, and gains a competitive advantage. Moreover, it hides
information for consumer choice which is not easily remedied with money damages. The injury
has occurred and continues and can best be remedied by invalidating the offending provisions.
In terms of balancing, Apple’s business justifications focus on other parts of the Apple
ecosystem and will not be significantly impacted by the increase of information to and choice for
consumers. Rather, this limited measure balances the justification for maintaining a cohesive
ecosystem with the public interest in uncloaking the veil hiding pricing information on mobile
devices and bringing transparency to the marketplace.

[….]

Accordingly, a nationwide injunction shall issue enjoining Apple from prohibiting
developers to include in their:

Apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to
action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition
to IAP.

Nor may Apple prohibit developers from:
Communicating with customers through points of contact obtained
voluntarily from customers through account registration within the
app.

Frankly, this seems like the right outcome overall. Apple’s restrictions on companies providing information to their users was always pretty shady. But the rest of the antitrust claims were pretty silly in the first place.

Another interesting tidbit in the opinion suggests that Epic’s arguments may have gone a step too far and undermined a stronger antitrust case that it could have made:

While the Court has found that evidence suggests Apple’s 30% rate of commission
appears inflated, and is potentially anticompetitive, Epic Games did not challenge the rate.
Rather, Epic Games challenged the imposition of any commission whatsoever

Oops.

Either way, this has to be seen as a pretty big victory for Apple, and I’m confused by some reports saying it’s a “major win for Epic Games.” It’s not.

But, of course, this is just the District Court. There is no way that Epic is not going to appeal this ruling.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: apple, epic

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Apple Mostly, But Not Entirely, Wins Against Epic; No Antitrust Violation, But Must Tweak Practices To Comply With CA Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
43 Comments
Interested Partysays:

What About Mandatory IAP?

Quoting the injunction:

Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (?Apple?), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

The key is whether this implies that Epic and others are allowed to charge users outside of Apple’s in-app purchasing (IAP) system. Paragraph (i) seems to indicate that this is indeed allowed.

If Epic and others can now avoid Apple’s 30% margin, that’s a pretty big deal. After all, that’s what the lawsuit was about.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: What About Mandatory IAP?

If you read the full judgment the judges reasoning makes it clear the injunction only applies to the anti-steering provision (i.e. providing links to where you can make purchases off-app).

Earlier in the ruling the judge rejects [b]all[/b] of Epic’s arguments over why Apple should be forced to allow other IAP options.

The wording the judge uses in the injunction is taken from Apple’s terms and she is basically telling Apple to delete the part of their terms about anti-steering which is a separate issue from IAP.

Interested Partysays:

What About Mandatory IAP?

Quoting the injunction:

Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

The key is whether this implies that Epic and others are allowed to charge users outside of Apple’s in-app purchasing (IAP) system. Paragraph (i) seems to indicate that this is indeed allowed.

If Epic and others can now avoid Apple’s 30% margin, that’s a pretty big deal. After all, that’s what the lawsuit was about.

Kobysays:

Bottom Dollar

Either way, this has to be seen as a pretty big victory for Apple, and I’m confused by some reports saying it’s a "major win for Epic Games." It’s not.

Apple took a pretty significant hit to its stock price today. Perhaps that’s the perspective that they’re coming from — a financial one. From their view, it doesn’t matter if it’s an antitrust violation, or an injunction as a result of unfair steering practices. If customers escape from the Apple app store and take their money elsewhere, then they figure that Apple suffered a big loss.

Ven'Tatsusays:

Re: Re: Bottom Dollar

It seems more like this is a big loss for both companies, Epic must pay Apple $3.65 million, and possibly face other repercussions and possibly worst of all might never be allowed back on the App Store. That $3.65 million is the 30% that apple would have gotten for three months of Fortnight in app purchases. I would assume that the 70% that Epic has not been getting for the last 6 months while they have taken out of the app store would be much more.

Apple on the other hand must allow apps to link to purchase options outside the App Store for in app purchases. In theory this means that the Kindle app could just open a page in Safari to finish a book purchase.

Epic effectively won a huge victory for every game company not named Epic, and for Amazon and others that sell content for their free apps.

Kobysays:

Bottom Dollar

Either way, this has to be seen as a pretty big victory for Apple, and I’m confused by some reports saying it’s a "major win for Epic Games." It’s not.

Apple took a pretty significant hit to its stock price today. Perhaps that’s the perspective that they’re coming from — a financial one. From their view, it doesn’t matter if it’s an antitrust violation, or an injunction as a result of unfair steering practices. If customers escape from the Apple app store and take their money elsewhere, then they figure that Apple suffered a big loss.

NaBUru38says:

Dear Mike, I would like some clarification.

You wrote: "It seems that District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with us, rejecting the antitrust claims entirely".

The judge wrote: "The trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws […] While Apple?s conduct does not fall within the confines of traditional antitrust law, the conduct falls within the purview of an incipient antitrust violation with particular anticompetitive practices which have not been justified".

I don’t understand the difference between "antitrust" and "anticompetitive". In fact, "Antitrust" and "Anti-trust law" redirect to "Competition law" on Wikipedia.

NaBUru38says:

Dear Mike, I would like some clarification.

You wrote: "It seems that District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed with us, rejecting the antitrust claims entirely".

The judge wrote: "The trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws […] While Apple’s conduct does not fall within the confines of traditional antitrust law, the conduct falls within the purview of an incipient antitrust violation with particular anticompetitive practices which have not been justified".

I don’t understand the difference between "antitrust" and "anticompetitive". In fact, "Antitrust" and "Anti-trust law" redirect to "Competition law" on Wikipedia.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Spoken like a true lawyer

In fact it’s a complete loss for Epic, as in court Epic literally stated that being allowed to offer out-app links to other payment options isn’t good enough for them (you could already do that just not mention it in said app) as it introduces too much friction, and they even argued in court with a straight face that they make most of their money from kids making impulse purchases through Fortnite directly so any friction of forcing people to go to their site would lower their sales.

That One Guysays:

Kinda showed your hand there EPIC

While the Court has found that evidence suggests Apple?s 30% rate of commission appears inflated, and is potentially anticompetitive, Epic Games did not challenge the rate. Rather, Epic Games challenged the imposition of any commission whatsoever.

Yeah I don’t see that argument flying any time soon and it seems the judge didn’t either as ‘you’re not allowed to charge people for use of your platform’ isn’t likely to receive a warm welcome in almost any court but a rabidly anti-business one.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Kinda showed your hand there EPIC

"Yeah I don’t see that argument flying any time soon and it seems the judge didn’t either as ‘you’re not allowed to charge people for use of your platform’ isn’t likely to receive a warm welcome in almost any court but a rabidly anti-business one."

So, NO court in the United States then?

That One Guysays:

Kinda showed your hand there EPIC

While the Court has found that evidence suggests Apple’s 30% rate of commission appears inflated, and is potentially anticompetitive, Epic Games did not challenge the rate. Rather, Epic Games challenged the imposition of any commission whatsoever.

Yeah I don’t see that argument flying any time soon and it seems the judge didn’t either as ‘you’re not allowed to charge people for use of your platform’ isn’t likely to receive a warm welcome in almost any court but a rabidly anti-business one.

Anonymoussays:

Re: What About Mandatory IAP?

If you read the full judgment the judges reasoning makes it clear the injunction only applies to the anti-steering provision (i.e. providing links to where you can make purchases off-app).

Earlier in the ruling the judge rejects [b]all[/b] of Epic’s arguments over why Apple should be forced to allow other IAP options.

The wording the judge uses in the injunction is taken from Apple’s terms and she is basically telling Apple to delete the part of their terms about anti-steering which is a separate issue from IAP.

Ven'Tatsusays:

Re: Bottom Dollar

It seems more like this is a big loss for both companies, Epic must pay Apple $3.65 million, and possibly face other repercussions and possibly worst of all might never be allowed back on the App Store. That $3.65 million is the 30% that apple would have gotten for three months of Fortnight in app purchases. I would assume that the 70% that Epic has not been getting for the last 6 months while they have taken out of the app store would be much more.

Apple on the other hand must allow apps to link to purchase options outside the App Store for in app purchases. In theory this means that the Kindle app could just open a page in Safari to finish a book purchase.

Epic effectively won a huge victory for every game company not named Epic, and for Amazon and others that sell content for their free apps.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Spoken like a true lawyer

In fact it’s a complete loss for Epic, as in court Epic literally stated that being allowed to offer out-app links to other payment options isn’t good enough for them (you could already do that just not mention it in said app) as it introduces too much friction, and they even argued in court with a straight face that they make most of their money from kids making impulse purchases through Fortnite directly so any friction of forcing people to go to their site would lower their sales.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow