Apple recently emerged victorious in its antitrust case against Epic Games.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tech giant, upholding the district court's decision, according to case documents. The ruling stated the company’s App Store policies did not breach antitrust laws, and Apple can continue charging a commission on in-app transactions while requiring developers to use its payment system.
"Apple prevailed at the 9th Circuit Court. Though the court upheld the ruling that Apple's restraints have 'a substantial anticompetitive effect that harms consumers,' they found we didn't prove our Sherman Act case," Tim Sweeney, from Epic, said in an April 24 post on Twitter.
The court did rule in favor of Epic Games under California’s Unfair Competition Law, the case documents reported.
"Fortunately, the court's positive decision rejecting Apple's anti-steering provisions frees iOS developers to send consumers to the web to do business with them directly there. We're working on next steps," Sweeney said in another Twitter post.
This decision is regarded as a significant setback for Epic Games and other developers who may have hoped this case would serve as a precedent for additional antitrust claims, according to TechCrunch. These companies hoped Apple would be forced to allow third-party app stores and payment systems on iOS devices.
Conversely, Apple hailed the ruling, saying it reaffirms the App Store's contributions to promoting competition, innovation and expansion, TechCrunch reported.
"Today’s decision reaffirms Apple’s resounding victory in this case, with nine of 10 claims having been decided in Apple’s favor," Apple said, according to Apple Insider. "For the second time in two years, a federal court has ruled that Apple abides by antitrust laws at the state and federal levels. The App Store continues to promote competition, drive innovation and expand opportunity, and we’re proud of its profound contributions to both users and developers around the world. We respectfully disagree with the court’s ruling on the one remaining claim under state law and are considering further review."
