Epic Game recently filed an opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This in order to be able to cancel the last decision of the judge concerning the Apple App Store. Indeed, the court ruled that the fact that Apple controls its app store does not result in a monopoly. But Epic Games is not at all of the same opinion.
Indeed, the video game developer filed in September 2021 and having not received a favorable response, the company decided to relaunch the appeal. In its filing, Epic decided to fully expose its opinion on the situation. He bluntly asserts that Apple’s conduct violates all antitrust laws.
Epic does not budge on the alleged monopoly exercised by Apple
During the lawsuit, Epic did not hesitate to denounce Apple’s poor practices, in particular the fact that developers were forced to use the App Store to distribute applications and forced to use Apple’s payment API. ‘Apple for digital content payments in their applications. Epic Games claimed that if the court does not intervene, it will strongly affect antitrust laws.
In September 2021, Epic already launched a lawsuit against the Apple company. As a result, a competent court ordered Apple to review certain restrictions on in-app payments. On the other hand, he did not recognize Apple as having monopolized the market and according to the court, no antitrust policy was circumvented. Following this, Epic to relaunch the file.
Apple defends itself against the charges
The court was not persuaded by the arguments made by Epic. Moreover, the judge Gonzales Rogers affirms that Apple just has a certain influence on the market but it is not recognized like monopoly. Yet, it would seem that Apple undeniably has a large share in the mobile gaming market.
Epic does not accept the court’s decision and it comes back with other claims that have to do with the success of the new iPhone. The case he built claims that the company is not following antitrust laws. At the trial, Appel’s spokesperson claims that all of their activities are legal and that they follow antitrust policies. Case to follow
–
