![]() The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear the case, and Epic Games may also request the Court to review its appeal.īackground of the Epic Games vs Apple case While Apple has largely prevailed in the appeals court, the case is still ongoing and could have significant implications for Apple’s App Store policies and the broader app development industry- as it could potentially compel Apple to change its payment practices within the App Store. In April 2023, the Court of Appeals largely upheld the judge’s order, favouring Apple on nine out of ten counts but finding Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions to be anti-competitive. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021, which stated that Apple could not prevent developers from offering links to payment options outside of the App Store,ĭuring the appeals process in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Epic Games challenged significant aspects of the judge’s ruling that were favourable to Apple, while Apple contested the order specifically related to the App Store. The case stems from an order issued by U.S. Schmalensee declined to comment, and Evans did not immediately return requests for comment.Apple has announced its intention to seek the US Supreme Court’s review of an antitrust case brought by Epic Games, which could potentially require Apple to allow third-party payment systems within its App Store. ![]() “Each of them knows though that whatever opinions they have said in the past have to be consistent with what they say now," said Steven Salop, professor of economics and law at Georgetown University and a self-described consultant to Epic on its case. Part of Apple's strategy in putting Schmalensee on the stand was to bring up the differences between Evans' previous work and his current view of the Epic case in a bid to make his testimony look less credible, observers said. "Personally, I don’t see how he gets there and gets it to stick." "I would say (Evans') views on AmEx haven’t changed, but what he would say is the facts here are different and so the same result isn’t appropriate," said Geoff Manne, president and founder of the International Center for Law & Economics research center. Outside observers have been surprised by the split between the two star economists. Schmalensee said Apple's rules that prohibit apps from steering consumers to less costly payment presented an almost identical issue, and that Evans had contradicted many aspects of his previous work. The court sided with American Express, citing Evans and Schmalensee extensively in its decision. Supreme Court case.Īmerican Express had prohibited merchants from steering their customers toward rival cards with lower swipe fees, arguing that its higher fees helped fund cardholder perks that benefited consumers. ![]() Schmalensee, by contrast, contends that the relevant market is gaming transactions, where Apple is just one platform among many - Microsoft Corp's (MSFT.O) Xbox and Sony Group Corp's (6758.T) PlayStation - sitting between game developers and gamers and charging commissions to facilitate transactions.Īpple's App Store is a two-sided marketplace, Schmalensee testified, a concept that he and Evans have written about extensively, including in an amicus curiae brief on behalf of American Express in a 2018 U.S. After Apple kicked "Fortnite" off the App Store, Evans testified, only a small fraction of Apple users jumped to other devices like PCs or gaming consoles to play "Fortnite." Since about 2010, Evans testified, Apple's App Store has effectively been its own market, and users rarely venture outside.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |