Epic sued Apple in August, accusing the technology giant of violating laws that restrict anti-competitive behavior. The suit, filed in federal court for the Northern District of California, alleges Apple has harmed both game-makers and payment processors and asks the court to compel Apple to grant easier access to the App Store.
Apple denied the allegations.
With the case grinding its way toward a scheduled May 2021 trial, Epic in August asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction making Apple open the App Store to Fortnite on a temporary basis. To prevail, Epic had to show both that it would suffer irreparable
A trial date has been set for Epic Games vs. Apple following an extended and public disagreement over the latter company’s alleged monopolization of iOS digital marketplaces. Epic Games initially filed suit immediately after Fortnite was removed from the App Store for violating its payment rules.
The case will be held as a bench trial, meaning there will be no jury, and begins on May 3, 2021. Because of the ongoing pandemic, the court has not yet decided whether the trial will be held in-person or virtually. The decision to use a bench trial was also influenced by the pandemic, as a backlog of jury trial cases would have pushed it into next summer.
Epic Games has argued that by not allowing outside companies to run their own digital stores on iOS devices, Apple has effectively created a monopoly. It takes a sizeable portion of every digital profit on the
It was only five years ago that Epic Games’ Josh Adam and Bill Bramer were onstage at Apple’s WWDC demoing Fortnite and talking about how incredible the iOS platform is for developers. Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you know where this is going.
The legal and public relations battle that Epic launched against Apple for delisting its app from their stores demonstrates a clear rebellion against the power of the platform that it once headlined.
Epic Games isn’t David fighting Goliath. Sure, it’s fiscally insignificant compared to Apple: revenue of $4.2 billion in 2019 versus Apple’s $260.2 billion. But we’re still talking billions, and it will have an impact far beyond these two companies.
In the beginning, Epic looked like it was taking a stand against injustice and representing all gaming companies who suffer that 30% cut in revenue on all in-app transactions. But the longer this goes
A US judge in California ruled Friday that Apple could bar Epic Games’s “Fortnite” game from its App Store, but the tech company must not harm Epic’s developer tools business.
“The Court maintains its findings from the temporary restraining order and hereby grants in part and denies in part Epic Games’ motion for a preliminary injunction,” District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled.
Last month, Epic Games had filed for a preliminary injunction that would put its game back in the App Store and restore its developer account after Apple terminated Epic Games’ account on its App Store.
Epic sued Apple in August alleging anticompetitive behavior. The lawsuit came after Epic rolled out its own payment system in the popular Fortnite video game.
Apple does not allow such alternative payment systems and removed Fortnite from the App Store and threatened to terminate Epic’s developer accounts, which would have affected Epic’s other
A federal judge denied a request from Epic Games to force Apple to reinstate Epic’s Fortnite game on the App Store while awaiting the results of an antitrust lawsuit.
U.S. District Court judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers also ruled in favor of Epic, permanently granting a prior temporary order that stops Apple from retaliating against Epic by removing support for Epic’s Unreal Engine.
The antitrust lawsuit began August 13 when Epic announced a discount policy and direct payment mechanism for Fortnite that Apple and Google said violated their respective terms of service. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has long argued that the 30% commissions the big companies take of every game transaction is unfair and that Epic should be able to directly sell its in-app goods to players for lower prices. Epic only charges 12% as a fee for developers in its own store.
Fortnite won’t be coming back to the App Store any time soon. On Friday, Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers refused to grant Epic Games a preliminary injunction against Apple that would force the game developer to reinstate Fortnite on the App Store, while simultaneously granting an injunction that keeps Apple from retaliating against the Unreal Engine, which Epic also owns (PDF). In other words, we now have a permanent version of the temporary restraining order ruling from last month.
That means the state of affairs, in which Epic is banned from publishing new games on iOS and cannot distribute Fortnite on the App Store in its current form, will remain in place for the length of the trial — unless Epic decides to remove its own in-app payment mechanism that initiated the bitter legal feud in August. Rogers had previously suggested a jury trial might be appropriate as soon as next
Attorneys for Apple and Epic Games have informed the judge presiding over their antitrust fight that they would prefer their case be decided by her rather than tried before a jury.
The request, filed in a joint statement Tuesday with US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California, said the two companies had met and decided Epic’s claims and Apple’s counterclaims should be decided by the court. The joint statement also said Apple had withdrawn its demand for a jury trial.
For more like this
Subscribe to the Apple Report newsletter, receive notifications and see related stories on CNET.
Rogers said Monday it’s likely the case, which she described as “the frontier of antitrust law,” wouldn’t be heard until July 2021. She also recommended a trial
The judge overseeing the legal battle between Apple and Epic Games said on Monday that a jury might be the best option to resolve the feud.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said she would issue a ruling on Epic’s request for an injunction. The injunction, if granted, would force Apple to put “Fortnite” back on the iOS App Store with its own in-house payment system during the trial.
Since Epic Games updated its online game “Fortnite” in August, the gaming company has been publicly and privately going head to head with Apple over allowing players to skirt Apple’s payment system.
Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
The federal judge overseeing Epic Games’ lawsuit against Apple over in-app payments in “Fortnite” said Monday that a jury should decide the case.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California did not directly order a jury trial, but said “real people” should
A federal judge in Oakland heard arguments today over a temporary restraining order in an antitrust case between Apple and Epic Games. In doing so, she shed light on some important arguments in the case.
The judge didn’t offer a ruling on the TRO, in which Epic is asking a judge to reinstate its Fortnite battle royale game in Apple’s App Store. Apple banned it in August because Epic Games offered its own direct payments to circumvent Apple collecting its full 30% fee on purchases in the game. Epic then filed an antitrust lawsuit. The case could go on for years, but the ruling on the TRO would be an early indication of what a federal judge thinks about the merits of the case.
But while Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers of the Oakland division of the U.S. District Court in Northern California hasn’t ruled yet on the TRO, she offered
During Monday’s hearing for Epic and Apple’s legal battle over the App Store and “Fortnite,” the judge suggested that the public’s opinion is important, with the matter otherwise penciled-in for a July bench trial.
Towards the end of a virtual hearing on Monday morning at the US District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told the legal teams of Epic and Apple that it would be worth considering having the trial with a jury to weigh in on the “Fortnite” saga”Fortnite” saga.
While a trial such as this could be handled by a judge or a group of judges, Rogers proposes it may be suitable for regular people to weigh in on the matter as a jury.
“They are important cases on the frontier of anti-trust law,” said Rogers, pointing out how major the case could be. However, Rogers also suggests the opinions