Battle Of Big Tech: Epic Games v Apple

Battle Of Big Tech: Epic Games v Apple​

The Story

Epic Games, creator of videogame Fortnight, famously sued Apple in August 2020. This was on account of Apple's alleged abuse of power: the App Store takes up to a 30% cut on every in-app purchase and doesn't allow competing app stores on the iPhone.

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, recently took the witness stand and attempted to defend his company from the accusations (Financial Times). He maintained that the prohibition on other in-app purchase methods represented a user-centred security measure, rather than a profit-making endeavour (Wall Street Journal). Otherwise, his testimony was vague, being described as “mild, carefully tended ignorance” (TechCrunch). It is unclear whether Mr Cook’s performance on the stand strengthened or weakened Apple’s case.

What It Means For Businesses and Law Firms

The final outcome of Epic Games v Apple will have significant implications for Big Tech and regulators alike. If Epic Games wins, the case for going after Apple might be bolstered, especially given the growing “wave of anti-tech sentiment” expressed by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic (New York Times).

The fees associated with the App Store have already prompted a class-action suit against Apple in the UK, charges of antitrust violations by the European Union (New York Times), as well as antitrust probes by the US Department of Justice (Bloomberg). However, if Apple wins, it might be difficult for regulators or other actors to mount similar allegations against the company – at least in the US (Reuters). The situation might be different in the UK; the CMA is also investigating the App Store payment system and has taken note of complaints from app developers, including Epic Games (Reuters). It remains to be seen whether the progression of Epic Games v Apple in the US courts will influence the investigation.

US heavyweights known for undertaking ‘big ticket’ litigation are acting for the parties in Epic Games v Apple. Cravath, Swaine & Moore is acting for Epic Games, while Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is acting for Apple (New York Times). The arguments presented before the court centred around the distinction between public and private business endeavours, the issue of ensuring consumer protection, and the question of barriers to entry for developers (Financial Times). The evolution of Big Tech is forcing antitrust theory to depart from orthodox definitions, concepts, and distinctions, while allowing lawyers to pursue novel lines of argumentation in court. Law firms with particularly well-regarded disputes practices and forward-looking strategies that enable them to understand the inner workings of Big Tech are likely to be sought after, to advise on cases similar to Epic Games v Apple.

Image Credit: Koshiro K/Shutterstock.com