The district court rejected Epic’s Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2 claims challenging the first and second restrictions, principally on the factual grounds that Epic failed to propose viable less restrictive alternatives to Apple’s restrictions. These restrictions were imposed under the Developer Program Licensing Agreement (“DPLA”), which developers were required to sign in order to distribute apps to iOS users. Epic alleged that Apple acted unlawfully by restricting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple’s App Store, requiring in-app purchases on iOS devices to use Apple’s in-app payment processor, and limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users. The panel explained that, when Apple opened the iPhone to third-party app developers, it created a “walled garden,” rather than an open ecosystem in which developers and users could transact freely without mediation from Apple. McShane, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. The panel affirmed except for the district court’s ruling respecting attorney fees, where it reversed and remanded for further proceedings. in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law against Epic on Apple’s claim for breach of contract and against Apple on its claim for attorney fees. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.Ĭourt Description: Antitrust The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, against Epic Games, Inc., on its Sherman Act claims for restraint of trade, tying, and monopoly maintenance against Apple, Inc. You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals.
#Apple vs epic case for free#
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals? The panel held that independent of the district court’s errors, Epic failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive alternative means for Apple to accomplish the procompetitive justifications supporting iOS’s walled garden ecosystem. The panel held that the district court erred as a matter of law in defining the relevant antitrust market, but those errors were harmless. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of antitrust liability and its corresponding rejection of Epic’s illegality defense to Apple’s breach of contract counter-claim.
in favor of Epic on its UCL claim against Epic on Apple’s claim for breach of contract and against Apple on its claim for attorney fees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, against Epic Games on its Sherman Act claims for restraint of trade, tying, and monopoly maintenance against Apple, Inc.
Apple counter-sued for breach of contract and indemnification for its attorney fees arising from this litigation. Epic contends that Apple acted unlawfully by restricting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple’s App Store, requiring in-app purchases on iOS devices to use Apple’s in-app payment processor, and limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users. pursuant to the Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
0 kommentar(er)
