wp-plugin-hostgator domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source:https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2023\/04\/24\/apple-wins-antitrust-court-battle-with-epic-games-appeals-court-rules\/<\/a><\/br> Apple has won its antitrust-focused appeals court battle with Fortnite maker Epic Games over its App Store policies, according to the opinion issued today by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court largely upheld the district court\u2019s earlier ruling related to Epic Games\u2019 antitrust claims in favor of Apple, but it also upheld the lower court\u2019s judgment in favor of Epic under California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law.<\/p>\n The mobile game maker had hoped to prove in its appeal that Apple had acted unlawfully by restricting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple\u2019s App Store which required payments to go through its own processor while preventing developers from communicating to customers about alternative ways to pay.<\/p>\n The court\u2019s ruling was first reported by Bloomberg<\/a>.<\/p>\n Apple has issued the following statement:<\/p>\n Today\u2019s decision reaffirms Apple\u2019s resounding victory in this case, with nine of ten claims having been decided in Apple\u2019s favor. 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\u2019re proud of its profound contributions to both users and developers around the world. We respectfully disagree with the court\u2019s ruling on the one remaining claim under state law and are considering further review.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The ruling is a major setback for Epic Games and other developers who hoped the ruling could set precedent for further antitrust claims and require Apple to open iOS devices to third-party app stores and payment systems.<\/p>\n Epic originally sued Apple in 2020<\/a>, after forcing Apple to remove Fortnite from the App Store after it intentionally violated the App Store terms over in-app purchases. Though Apple had largely won the lawsuit<\/a> when the judge declared Apple was not acting as a monopolist, the court sided with the Fortnite maker on the matter of Apple\u2019s anti-steering policies regarding restrictions on in-app purchases. It said that Apple would no longer be able to prohibit<\/a> developers from pointing users to other means of payment.<\/p>\n Both Apple and Epic<\/a> appealed<\/a> the ruling \u2014 Apple over the required changes to App Store policies related to external links and Epic to try its antitrust case again.<\/p>\n In today\u2019s decision, the appeals court panel affirmed the district court\u2019s denial of antitrust liability and its corresponding rejection of Epic\u2019s illegality defense to Apple\u2019s breach of contract counter-claim, the ruling said. However, it also noted that the district court had erred in defining the relevant antitrust market and in holding that Apple\u2019s DPLA (Developer Program Licensing Agreement) fell outside of the scope of the antitrust law known as the Sherman Act.<\/p>\n But it said those errors were ultimately \u201charmless\u201d and that Epic, regardless, had \u201cfailed 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\u2019s walled- garden ecosystem.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, while these types of contracts can be within the scope of a Sherman Act claim, that wasn\u2019t relevant to the court\u2019s decision in this case.<\/p>\n The panel also upheld the district court\u2019s ruling in favor of Epic Games within the scope of California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law.<\/p>\n \u201cThe district court did not clearly err in finding that Epic was injured, err as a matter of law when applying California\u2019s flexible liability standards, or abuse its discretion when fashioning equitable relief,\u201d the ruling stated.<\/p>\n That would mean the anti-steering changes the district court previously decided on would once again be required.<\/p>\n Apple hasn\u2019t yet issued an appeal for this part of the decision. It will likely weigh its options before making that determination.<\/p>\n In another bright spot for Apple, the appeals court ruled that the district court had erred when it ruled that Apple wasn\u2019t entitled to attorney fees related to the DPLA breach of contract claims.<\/p>\n Epic Games responded to a request for comment by pointing to founder and CEO Tim Sweeney\u2019s statement<\/a>, shared on Twitter.<\/p>\n \u201cApple prevailed at the 9th Circuit Court,\u201d Sweeney wrote. \u201cThough the court upheld the ruling that Apple\u2019s restraints have \u2018a substantial anticompetitive effect that harms consumers,\u2019 they found we didn\u2019t prove our Sherman Act case.Fortunately, the court\u2019s positive decision rejecting Apple\u2019s anti-steering provisions frees iOS developers to send consumers to the web to do business with them directly there. We\u2019re working on next steps.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nApple wins antitrust court battle with Epic Games, appeals court rules<\/br>
\n2023-04-24 21:47:39<\/br><\/p>\n\n