The ruling for the Epic vs. Apple trial has finally come in, just three months past its end. On the matter of Apple's "anti-steering" policies (meaning app developers are not allowed to steer customers to outside payment services), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has ruled these anticompetitive, and has thus issued a permanent injunction forbidding Apple from preventing links to third-party payment systems. The injunction is set to go into effect in 90 days, at which point app developers will be allowed to implement these changes. The ruling reads:

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 ruling was not entirely in Epic's favour, however. Judge Rogers also sided with Apple on their claim that Epic breached their contract by adding a direct payment system to Fortnite on iOS. She has ruled that Epic must pay Apple damages equal to "30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August and October 2020," plus "30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment, and interest according to law." She also felt that Epic did not establish that Apple is a monopoly, dashing Epic's hopes of opening up Apple's walled garden App Store.

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.
​

Since Apple was ruled to be justified in terminating Epic's developer account, they are not beholden to reestablish them or put Fortnite back on the App Store. While it's unknown right now what will happen, it is worth pointing out that just yesterday, South Korea instituted a new law that would require platform holders to allow redirection to outside payment services--exactly what got Fortnite kicked off the App Store, and exactly what this ruling has decided Apple must do in the United States. Epic took the opportunity to request their developer account be reinstated in South Korea and, in a move Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called "petty and ridiculous," Apple denied them.

This is also likely not the last we'll hear of this case. There is still a lengthy appeals process that both companies will likely pursue, but for now, this looks like it could have a major impact on the way Apple handles its App Store for the foreseeable future.

 

[ChibiMofo]

Am I the only one old enough to be disgusted that so many of you have no problem with paying the 30% Apple tax or the 30% Google tax on your purchases OF OTHER'S DEVS SOFTWARE? LOL! I've never paid such a tax and I never will.

But go ahead, Hand your money over to corporations who racketeer their earnings out of your country so they themselves don't have to pay taxes.

 

[VartioArtel]

Mainly a win for Epic

Good for Apple:
They got a ruling to say they are not a monopoly (lolwut)
They get the money that Epic gained by asking ios users to use Epic's payment platform instead of Apple's

Good for Epic / Software developers:
They don't have to use Apple's payment system (30% cut) for app transactions on ios

I think apple already knew this was coming given they dropped their 30% comission to 15% for small businesses shortly after this lawsuit (but then made the process of applying for the discounted comission extremely hard for small businsesses to get)

False. Page 68, and various other pages throughout The document confirm that just because the purchases are not in-app, doesn't mean that Epic doesn't have to pay the 30% commission they agreed to.

Not that Apple's likely to let epic back on their storefront anyhow.

 

[Teletron1]

Monopolizing a payment system who would of thought, only took so many years for someone to do something

 

[nolimits59]

In before all premium iOS apps disappear only to resurface as trial versions with the ability to buy the full app from within

It would actually make sense, I have a tweak on my jailbroke 11 Pro that "fake buy" premium status for some apps because it rely on Apple system.

 

[Spider_Man]

Id just say fuck you crapple, shit phones with an old shit ios recycled, powered by other chips from other devices.

Features that are possible without having to upgrade to its latest model.

I used to be an iphone user and hated how everything is lockdown to craptunes.

Android is pretty much open to do what you like.

 

[mspy]

Apple is still not required to allow alternative in-app purchase systems (like using Epic's servers.). They simply can't block apps from linking to external websites where you do a payment.

Next up will surely be making safari more of a pain in the ass at this process.

This is why at first glance I thought the epic 'win' would mean nothing BUT if using the epic 'external' payment will cost 30% less for the user than buying in-app it can make a huge difference to the point that apple fanboys might start asking why the hell apple is taking a 30% cut for doing almost nothing.

edit: i also wonder if this can be used as a legal precedent against gaming consoles in a way that they would have to allow 3rd party stores on their system or allow for 'external' payment methods.

 

[VartioArtel]

Interesting. Is there anything stopping them from kicking these apps off altogether?

No. In fact they basically already had excluding the Unreal Engine development account. Whether apple completely purges Epic of their platform is the big question.

Interesting ruling both that apple cannot restrict separate payment options AND epic violated their (illegal?) contract

There was no 'illegal' contract. If it was the judge would have definitely pointed it out. As the judge noted, while Apple's commission fee is high, nothing in it is illegal as they've simply kept course on using the standard price back a decade ago. There is a question in that if continuing to keep the price that high though IS stagnating the market, but that's a question for a different court.

The fact was that the only thing illegal on Apple's end was prohibiting people from linking to off-app payment methods, or websites.

Meanwhile Epic breaking the contract was, unequivocally, illegal. You do not break a contract not only willingly, but with malicious intent. Epic documents and emails both inside and out (to Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony especially) revealed the intent to cause this whole drama, proving malice. That's why Epic got such a hard hit.


The following is a huge lump reply

It is a nice loss for both sides.

On Apple's side, they lost the additional gains from people being forced to use their payment platform (since it effectively meant that 30% share was collected twice, once by having the game on the platform and once by paying through an Apple payment processor), which will hurt them on the long term.

I bet some people here are so blinded by their rage against Epic that they don't even see the win for consumers.

Epic won, but not totally. They helped mostly every other developer, which was what they set out to do, or so they made it out to be.

Im glad Apple took the loss, and it was obvious Epic would be barred from their app store.

Weird they have to pay for the earnings from a now illegal system, but that's the way of the law.

Kudos for Epic for taking Apple on. Respect.

This is why at first glance I thought the epic 'win' would mean nothing BUT if using the epic 'external' payment will cost 30% less for the user than buying in-app it can make a huge difference to the point that apple fanboys might start asking why the hell apple is taking a 30% cut for doing almost nothing.

edit: i also wonder if this can be used as a legal precedent against gaming consoles in a way that they would have to allow 3rd party stores on their system or allow for 'external' payment methods.

So all of you have a huge misconception of what's going on here amongst all you here I'm quoting.

There is, currently, only one thing viewed as illegal outright by the court system in Apple's approach, as Epic could not provide hard proof of actual illegal-monopolistic or undisputably anti-competitive. That illegal thing is that Apple was providing a line in their contracts preventing any and all companies who signed with them to link to off-site transactions.

There are multiple times throughout the document, most famously on page 68, wherein the document says that even were the IAP optional, that because the 30% commission is linked to the contract and not to the transactions, that purchases made Off-App but taken through the app would still need to be paid to Apple/Google.

I refer to the following links made by a youtuber known as HoegLaw which quotes these statements:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E--Oa8OWQAA5K9W?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E--OoQXWQAMh9az?format=jpg&name=large

To quote:
"Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission."
(Page 151 - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-judgement.pdf )

In short, Apple lost nothing. Any purchases made off-app and then conveyed through the game in-app would still be coined the 30%. The Judge coined that as legal, even if the 30% itself is dubious in value and the judge is definitely implying that while they have no authority with the current evidence to make a statement on if the 30% is ACTUALLY anti-competitive.

Now, the first thought is: "wait, how would they be able to deem what off-app purchases are for their apps?".

To that I answer: It's a given that any purchases made in-app using in-app currencies and/or utilized in-app. Not only that, but the companies are required to keep actual notekeeping on which platforms are bringing in the profits from which companies for the sake of their Stock Holder meetings. If you don't think this is possible, I'd like to remind people that Twitter and other websites for example keep track of what you post from, as example. Likewise, multiplatform games would keep track of where their multi-platform currencies, such as VBucks (Fortnite), Fates (Genshin Impact), etc, would be spent on.

TL;Dr: Epic lost 98% of the case, beyond (the remaining 2%) making Apple link to potential stores off the Apple store. And even there they lost as Apple would still be due their commission rates on those off-app purchases.

 

[Izual Urashima]

To quote:
"Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission."
(Page 151 - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-epic-judgement.pdf )

In short, Apple lost nothing. Any purchases made off-app and then conveyed through the game in-app would still be coined the 30%. The Judge coined that as legal, even if the 30% itself is dubious in value and the judge is definitely implying that while they have no authority with the current evidence to make a statement on if the 30% is ACTUALLY anti-competitive.

Okay, I got it, thanks for clarification. I thought said commission would simply be lost by Apple. That being said, Apple still lost that 2% (which is huge for smaller companies, considering Apple's size) and a bit more (considering they "graciously" reduced their 30% tax to 15% for smaller companies), and them losing more could have much painful consequences for the industry as a whole (since, for all their "we're doing it for the players" spiel, Epic was clearly aiming for choices of words that would let them either tear up every market or take all the potential benefits without paying anything in return).

There's also all the dishonesty during the trial, on all sides. Be it Epic with their "multiverse is not a game", Apple with their attempts to shut everything down before the trial happens, Sony with all the dubious choices being revealed during the trial, and so on. And this is something that should be pointed out and answered to, considering how all companies tried to pull these under the rug.

 

[VartioArtel]

Okay, I got it, thanks for clarification. I thought said commission would simply be lost by Apple. That being said, Apple still lost that 2% (which is huge for smaller companies, considering Apple's size) and a bit more (considering they "graciously" reduced their 30% tax to 15% for smaller companies), and them losing more could have much painful consequences for the industry as a whole (since, for all their "we're doing it for the players" spiel, Epic was clearly aiming for choices of words that would let them either tear up every market or take all the potential benefits without paying anything in return).

There's also all the dishonesty during the trial, on all sides. Be it Epic with their "multiverse is not a game", Apple with their attempts to shut everything down before the trial happens, Sony with all the dubious choices being revealed during the trial, and so on. And this is something that should be pointed out and answered to, considering how all companies tried to pull these under the rug.

Speaking of the whole 'we're doing it for the players', the Judge also made sure to THOROUGHLY destroy Epic on that whole thing, noting that almost everything they were doing was clearly not for the people but instead to generate situations like this. While there were no sanctions, there were clear and present mentions like the following (a few screenshots I took throughout the document):

https://i.imgur.com/e9o9bpH.png
https://i.imgur.com/6oikQBT.png

Not to mention a whole section dedicated to Epic's "Project Liberty", pointing out the bullshit about that including the back-room dealing (which will probably cripple their forwards actions legally), including how they were more or less attempting to collude with nintendo, sony, and microsoft to avoid them lashing out against Epic. You can find the section about project liberty starting Page 20 in the document.

The Judge does such a thorough job documenting every detail of Epic's actions (and yes, even criticizing Apple at points throughout the Document - as I noted the Judge scathes Apple for things without punishing them because they cannot make a clear statement about Anti-Competitive or Illegal-Monopoly) and shading a very unflattering lamp on them it's clear that Epic's whole schpeal from start to end just did not catch with the judge.

You got to remember that the "2%" loss I speak of is a figurative one. They didn't pay a penny, it's just how much of the case you could say Epic won. It comes out to 0 cost-related losses or gains to ANYONE, whether google, apple, epic, developers, or the sort. It is just a requirement those companies permit off-app purchases. If anything, this provides a LOT more room for companies to scrutinize its partners if it suspects them of trying to pocket the money. Apple overall won everything beyond an extremely symbolic victory of 'anti-steering', which doesn't really mean much of anything beyond giving the Devs more options how their players can pay.

I think the real thing to look out for after this case will be Apple adjusting their fees, which seems they'll have to to avoid future scrutiny as the Judge made it VERY CLEAR that 30% is anti-competitive without flat out ruling it, because while there's no foundation for the 30%, and it's using security for mostly 'pretextual' reasoning, it's still 'reasoning' and probably wouldn't survive better scrutiny.

Remember this: Ultimately this whole schpeal was Epic trying to take control of the whole market via aggressive tactics to allow them to put their EGS Apps which bypass any commission fees on every platform imaginable, and the Judge flat out said "No". That is the ultimate goal of this case, and Epic lost on it.

 

[SilverWah]

This whole fucking case was all about 'Eww they make more money than our multi-billion dollar company. Let's sue them and wrap it up as a pro consumer movement. That'll anger the fans and riot with us!'
While Epic has done some scummy things themselves like aggresively hoarding 'exclusives' for their game launcher.
Like bloody hell this is for sure a hypocritical case if I ever saw one. Just pure bullshit all around in my opinion.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

Google takes a 30% cut on the playstore I believe

Yes you can release your product on a separate store or via direct download but most people don't know how to do that

They don't force people to use Google payments though. In-app purchases are allowed to go through a 3rd party payment provider.

 

[SS4]

iOS is such a closed ecosystem. You either do what they say or you fuck off basically.
They even decide what users wants or whats best for them . . .
I never understood how ppl could stand for their BS honestly lol

 

[subcon959]

iOS is such a closed ecosystem. You either do what they say or you fuck off basically.
They even decide what users wants or whats best for them . . .
I never understood how ppl could stand for their BS honestly lol

There are an awful lot of people that don't care about any of that so it's not so surprising. There are also a lot of people that do care about who they see using a particular phone and want the same one.

 

[VartioArtel]

iOS is such a closed ecosystem. You either do what they say or you fuck off basically.
They even decide what users wants or whats best for them . . .
I never understood how ppl could stand for their BS honestly lol

Same reason people can buy Mac computers. They're delusional usually or feel 'safe' with their systems. Regardless that's not relevant to the trial. It is a valid system of competition. Besides, with a few word changes your statement can be applied to Epic considering the scummery they attempted, so picking Apple out of the pile's not exactly kosher.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This whole fucking case was all about 'Eww they make more money than our multi-billion dollar company. Let's sue them and wrap it up as a pro consumer movement. That'll anger the fans and riot with us!'
While Epic has done some scummy things themselves like aggresively hoarding 'exclusives' for their game launcher.
Like bloody hell this is for sure a hypocritical case if I ever saw one. Just pure bullshit all around in my opinion.

It's noted that they KNEW that, without their marketing to make themselves look the heroes, that the consumerbase would flat out despise them (starting page 20 in the Court Document). That's why they started the coalition and that's why they started the 1984tnite video and all that other stuff. The judge did NOT fall for their shit.

 

[logandzwon]

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the scope of the rule change. Apple doesn’t have to allow alternative payment systems. They just can’t forbid apps from telling the customer about external payment options.

IE; the Netflix app. It only lets you sign in. You need to already have an account. The app will not even mention how get an account. This change doesn’t allow Netflix to let you sign in the app, but the app can tell you to leave the app, goto Netflix’s website, sign-up, then come back, and then log-in. Nobody is going to do that for an in-app micro purchase.

 

[GamerzHell9137]

Android has a locked pay system? I...don't think so?

iirc Fortnite doesn't use Google Pay or w/e the system of Android is. They are using their own.

 

[x65943]

iirc Fortnite doesn't use Google Pay or w/e the system of Android is. They are using their own.

Google is just as guilty and arguably actually committing crimes

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...google-lawsuit-unredacted-complaint-antitrust

Google took 30% and also was paying phone manufacturers off as long as they wouldn't pre-load epic games on phones

 

[VartioArtel]

Google is just as guilty and arguably actually committing crimes

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...google-lawsuit-unredacted-complaint-antitrust

Google took 30% and also was paying phone manufacturers off as long as they wouldn't pre-load epic games on phones

Hadn't heard of this (Because the google side's been handled a LOT more under the radar), and it was surprising, till I remembered "it is google, isn't it?"

The fact Google is making an 'artificial walled garden' through backdoor deals wherein Apple's whole design is an intentional walled garden may be what's going to get Google reamed in ways that are not safe for work, or GBAtemp. Honestly, had Epic tried to make their big attack on google instead of Apple, maybe they'd be in a better position.

ALTHOUGH: I will not be surprised if this decision will still cripple a lot of Epic's case against Google. I still see absolutely massive fees on Google for their clearly illegal behavior, but I don't see Epic getting much of what they want either considering that Apple's case put a precedence of maliciousness on Epic's side as well.

I'm now curious what Hoeglaw will say about this one. For a lawtuber, the guy got the exact result of Epic vs Apple correct a long, looong time ago.

 

[Bladexdsl]

i love that this has happened to apple but i hate that epic has won

 

[subcon959]

i love that this has happened to apple but i hate that epic has won

Epic didn't "win", Tim Sweeney was even moaning about losing the case on Twitter.