![]() Three days later, Epic Games filed the request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), requesting the reinstatement of Fortnite with its activated hotfix on the App Store, and enjoining Apple from terminating Epic Games’ iOS developer accounts. ![]() ![]() Apple became aware of the situation the same day and removed Fortnite from the App Store. Shortly thereafter, Epic Games activated the code in Fortnite, allowing itself to collect IAPs directly. Unaware of this undisclosed code, Apple approved the software update. Unbeknownst to Apple, the hotfix contained a code that, once activated, would permit Fortnite users to make in-game purchases through Epic Games’ direct pay option, thereby circumventing Apple’s IAP system. Apple unequivocally denied this request.įollowing Apple’s rejection, Epic Games submitted to Apple for its review a software update, or a “hotfix,” to its flagship video game product, Fortnite. In particular, Epic Games requested the ability to offer iOS users alternatives for distribution though its Epic Game Stores app and competing payment processing options through Epic Direct Pay, stating that these two offerings would allow consumers to pay less for digital products and allow developers to earn more money. In 2020, Epic Games renewed the DPLA with Apple but sought a “side letter” or other special deal from Apple that would provide Epic with preferable terms. Specifically, Epic Games took issue with three provisions contained in the DPLA that bound developers to (1) distribute iOS apps only through Apple’s App Store, (2) use Apple’s in-app payment processor (“IAP”) to process in-app payments, and (3) not communicate out-of-app payment methods through certain mechanisms such as in-app links. In 2015, Epic Games began objecting to Apple’s “walled garden” ecosystem, through which Apple precludes developers and users from transacting freely without its mediation. ![]() To do so, Epic agreed to pay a flat $99 fee and an ongoing 30% commission on its iOS revenue. Apple have been extensively covered elsewhere, but to briefly summarize: In 2010, Epic Games, a multi-billion-dollar video game company, executed Apple’s DPLA, which provided it access to Apple’s vast consumer base and developer tools that facilitate the development of iOS apps. Apple with respect to the scope of restitution and injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and what the decision may mean for future litigants seeking to obtain injunctions that may benefit non-parties. This article explores the implications of Epic v. ![]() Apple appealed the adverse ruling under the UCL and on April 24, 2023, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion affirming the district court’s ruling and in particular affirming that the scope of the injunction could cover all of Apple's Digital Program Licensing Agreement (“DPLA”) accounts was appropriate. As a result, Judge Rogers issued a permanent injunction preventing Apple from enforcing its anti-steering provision that had prohibited third-party developers from steering users to other digital storefronts to complete purchases. which is also known as California’s Unfair Competition Law (or “UCL”). After a three-week trial held in the District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland, in September 2021 Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in favor of Apple as to nine of Epic’s ten causes of action but ruled that Apple’s anti-steering policies violated California’s Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. Apple), a clash between a multi-billion-dollar video game developer (Epic) and the world’s largest technology company by revenue (Apple). One of the most-watched antitrust cases of the past several years has been Epic Games, Inc. Apple, Inc.: A new day for injunctive relief under California’s UCL? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |