ARTICLE
20 December 2021

Epic Games V. Apple – Apple Gets Breathing Space

WP
WH Partners

Contributor

We are a law firm with a strong focus on assisting businesses fuelling the digital economy and not only in the territories we operate in. We have offices in Malta, Italy, Romania, and we operate Czech, Polish and UAE desks, as well as having a worldwide network of correspondent firms. We have a well-established practice advising clients on (in no particular order) fintech, gaming & gambling, corporate, M&A, tax, dispute resolution, corporate finance, intellectual property, data privacy and personal data processing, consumer protection & advertising, real estate, employment & immigration matters, sports, technology & media, competition & state aid. Our firm and several of our lawyers are highly ranked by Chambers & Partners, Legal 500, IFLR1000 and Who’s Who Legal.
Back in August 2020 Epic Games initiated its suit against Apple arguing that the company's practices are monopolistic and that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices by only allowing for payments...
Malta Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

This is our seventh update in relation to the legal dispute concerning Epic Games and Apple.

Our First Article, Second Article, Third Article, Fourth ArticleFifth Article, and Sixth Article are accessible via the direct links provided.

Back in August 2020 Epic Games initiated its suit against Apple arguing that the company's practices are monopolistic and that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive practices by only allowing for payments to be made through the App Store.

Fast-forward to 10 September 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers delivered her ruling stating that "The Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transaction." She continued that the Court does "however, [...] find that Apple's conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anti-competitive." Following this ruling, Apple was given until 9 December 2021 to make the necessary changes to the App Store in order to allow developers to link alternate payment methods.

On 8 December 2021 however, the appeals court moved to grant Apple's motion allowing for a stay, in part, to the district court's permanent injunction pending appeal. Consequently, Apple is able to maintain its in-app purchase system on iOS notwithstanding the district court's earlier ruling which found such restrictions to be anti-competitive. While this stay does not reverse the earlier decision, it will remain in effect until the court fully considers Apple's appeal which could take several months.

This is an ongoing case; we will be providing updates on the matter as they happen.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More