Update 9/14 : Despite pay a $ 6 M fine as ordered by the judge , Epic has appealed the ruling .
The bigEpic Games v. Apple trialconcluded back in May shortly after testimony from Apple CEO Tim Cook , but it was await to take months before a ruling was reached . Today , we have that opinion , and while it does n’t give Epic Games everything it seek in its complaint , it is still a major victory for the developer and others that feel Apple ’s App Store economy is too tightly restricted .
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ’ ruling states that : .
Malus pumila … is hereby permanently confine and enjoined from disallow developer from include in their apps and their metadata push , external links , or other calls to action mechanism that direct customer to buy 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 one - page opinion , whichyou can read here , takes effect in 90 years . Epic has already file an appeal and paid the $ 6 million fine rank by the judge , according to a tweet by CEO Tim Sweeney .
Epic Games was seeking just this very thing . Including its own requital processing method was what got it sound off out of the App Store in the first place . thou of apps are already allow to include their own defrayment processing under Apple ’s rules , namely any app that sells only strong-arm goods or servicing , from Amazon , Walmart , Uber , and Doordash all the way down to your local lineman or curtilage service .
Apple take away Fortnite from the App Store after Epic offer its own payment method .
IDG
It is unclear from the voice communication if Apple will be required to allow in - app payment processing methods other than its own ( as it does let for all those apps ) or if it can restrict apps to onlylinkingto external sites for alternative payments .
Epic Games also try the power to load apps onto iPhones through methods other than Apple ’s App Store , and even to allow alternative App Stores , interchangeable to what we have on the Mac or on Android earpiece . The enjoinment ruling does not cater for that .
You canread the full ruling here , which expands on the judge ’s logical thinking . In essence , the tribunal found that Apple was not a monopolist under the law , but was engage in anticompetitive practice in the relevant grocery under California ’s rivalry laws .
still , the trial did show that Apple is engage in anticompetitive conduct under California ’s competition laws . The Court conclude that Apple ’s anti - steering provision blot out critical information from consumer and lawlessly stifle consumer pick . When couple with Apple ’s incipient antitrust violations , these anti - steering victuals are anticompetitive and a countrywide remediation to wipe out those provisions is guarantee .
Interestingly , the court found that “ relevant marketplace ” was not what either Epic or Apple fence it to be . This was a case about mobile gaming more than anything else , the court found , and mobile gaming transactions make up nearly all the money Apple nominate from the App Store :
The Court take issue with both party ’ definition of the relevant mart .
Ultimately , after evaluating the test evidence , the Court receive that the relevant market here isdigital mobile play minutes , not gaming generally and not Apple ’s own intimate operating systems touch on to the App Store . The wandering gaming market itself is a$100 billion industry . The size of it of this market explains Epic Games ’ motivation in bringing this action . Having pervade all other video plot markets , the roving gaming market was Epic Games ’ next object and it reckon Apple as an impediment .
Further , the grounds shew that most App Store taxation is generate by mobile gaming apps , not all apps . Thus , defining the market to focalise on play apps is appropriate . mostly speaking , on arevenue basis , gaming apps account for approximately 70 % of all App Store tax income . This 70 % of gross is generated by less than 10 % of all App Store consumers . These gaming - app consumer are primarily making in - app purchase which is the focus of Epic Games ’ title . By contrast , over 80 % of all consumer accounts generate virtually no revenue , as 80 % of all apps on the App Store are gratuitous .
Katherine Adams , Apple ’s general counsellor and senior frailty chairwoman of Legal and Global Security , issued a assertion praising the decision and calling it “ a huge winnings for Apple . ”
The Court has confirmed , after retrospect evidence from a 16 - day trial , that Apple is not a monopolist in any relevant market and that its agreement with app developer are sound under the antimonopoly laws . rent me repeat that : the Court found that Apple is not a monopolist under ‘ either Union or state antimonopoly laws . ’ …
We are still analyzing the determination which is 180 pages long but the newspaper headline is that Apple ’s App Store business model has been validated … .In short , this is a resounding victory and underscores the meritoriousness of our occupation both as an economic and competitive engine .
This does not of necessity mean that Fortnite is total back to the App Store . The judicature found that Apple ’s expiration of the Developer Program License Agreement ( DPLA ) was “ valid , lawful , and enforceable ” at the time , and it will be up to Apple to decide whether to allow the app or not . Just this workweek , Epic asked Apple to reestablish its DPLA and allow Fortnite back on the App Store in Korea , where a new jurisprudence force Apple and Google to countenance substitute in - app payment method . While Apple has so far declined to allow the app back in the App Store , the Korean law has not yet gone into effect .
The court decision comes just before Apple ’s “ California cyclosis ” effect , which will presumably showcase theiPhone13 . Apple may invoke the ruling as well as Epic , but after such a incontrovertible statement , it may also accept the terms of the judge ’s opinion .
