A judgment could be only a few weeks away. While lawyers in Australia start to forecast extra billings in the case (good barristers alone cost at least US$6000 a day), Epic and Apple await the outcome of their California case, which wrapped up in May 2021. The Court also just fancied the idea of testing the case in Australia, rather than waiting for a US precedent to ponder.Īpple swiftly said it would appeal the decision, on grounds that its contract with Epic requires the two companies to conduct litigation in California.Įpic has hailed the decision as a win for Australian consumers, even though it still has to actually win its case. It has blocked or limited apps that compete with it, and it charges a 30 percent feenot just 30 percent of the purchase price, but 30 percent of all the revenue the app generates, including from in-game purchases. The key question the judge will have to answer is whether Apples App Store is an 'essential facility', a sort of public utility that no one company. Epic Games gets itself epically banned, launches epic Fortnite death match with Apple over App Store's epic 30% cut Why did Epic Games sue Apple Apple exercises tight control over what apps people can load on their phones. Epic Games has timed the lawsuit perfectly. For Epic, Katherine Forrest, Gary Bornstein (both lawyers from Cravath), Epic CEO Tim Sweeney and two others are seated at counsel table.

Epic Games files competition lawsuit against Google in the UK over Fortnite's ejection from Play Store.Apple seeks to junk claim that iOS is an 'essential facility' in legal spat with Epic Games.Tim Cook: Sideloading is a disaster and proposed App Store reforms would harm user privacy and security.Those descriptions, the Federal Court argued, meant Apple’s role in the Australian market was not given proper consideration. 'Epic is here, demanding that this court force Apple to let into its App Store untested and untrusted apps and app stores,' one of Apples lawyers, Karen Dunn, said in opening remarks. The third error was the previous decision’s characterisation of Apple’s role in app sales as “ornamental” or “parasitic”. pursuant to the Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Sweeney said that Apples decision was in retaliation over the gaming companys antitrust lobbying, its lawsuit against Apple, and some of Sweeneys social.

Epic vs apple lawyers